|
THE CONCEPT OF ISLAMIC STATE
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Islamic state is a most discussed subject both
among supporters as well as among its opponents. Is there any such
concept? Can we call any state an Islamic state? There are many claimants
of course. Interestingly among the claimants are military dictators as
well as monarchs. Can we legitimately call it an Islamic state? Is there
any such criterion to judge the claim? If so, what is that criterion?
Generally some ritualistic aspects of Islam like prayer, fasting, zakat
etc. are imposed in addition to the Islamic punishments to lay claim to
the Islamic state. Will it be enough of a criterion?
First of all we should know whether there is any concept of Islamic state
in the Qur'an or Hadith literature. A thorough examination of the
scripture and Hadith literature shows that there is no such concept of
Islamic state. In fact after the death of the Holy Prophet the Muslims
were not agreed even on the issue of his successor. The Muslims split on
the question - a section maintaining that the Prophet (PBUH) never
appointed any successor and another section maintaining that he did.
As far as the Qur'an is concerned there is, at best, a concept of a
society rather than a state. The Qur'an lays emphasis on 'adl and ihsan
i.e. justice and benevolence. A Qur'anic society must be based on these
values. Also, the Qur'an strongly opposes zulm and 'udwan i.e. oppression
and injustice. No society thus based on zulm and 'udwan can qualify for an
Islamic society. The Qur'anic values are most fundamental. It is thus
debatable whether a state, declaring itself to be an Islamic state, can be
legitimately accepted as such without basing the civil society on these
values. We will throw more light on this later.
First of all it is important to note that the pre-Islamic Arab society had
not known any state structure. It was a predominantly a tribal society
which did not know any distinction between a state and a civil society.
There was no written law, much less a constitution. There was no governing
authority either hereditary or elected. There was a senate called mala'.
It consisted of tribal chiefs of the tribes in the area. Any decision
taken had to be unanimous and the tribal chiefs enforced the decision in
their respective tribes. If a tribal chief dissented, the decision could
not be implemented.
There was no taxation system nor any police or army. There was no concept
of territorial governance or defense or policing. Each tribe followed its
own customs and traditions. There were of course inter-tribal wars and all
adult tribals took part in defending ones tribal interests. The only law
prevalent was that of qisas i.e. retaliation. The Qur'an put it succinctly
as "And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding.
" (2:179) The whole tribal law and ethic in pre-Islamic Arabia was
based on the law of retaliation.
The Islamic movement in Mecca inherited this situation. When the Prophet
and his companions faced severe persecution in Mecca they migrated to
Madina also known as Yathrib. Madina was also basically a tribal city
governed by tribal laws. Like Mecca in Madina too, there was no state and
only tribal customs and traditions prevailed. In fact Madina was worse in
a way than Mecca. In Mecca inter-tribal wars were not much in evidence as
it was turning into a commercial society and inter-tribal corporations for
trade were coming into existence. However, Madina, being an oasis, was a
semi- agricultural society and various tribes were at daggers drawn. It
was to get rid of the inter-tribal warfare that the people of Madina
invited the Holy Prophet as an arbitrator.
The Prophet, a great spiritual and religious personality, commanded great
respect and set out to establish a just society in Madina. First of all he
drew up a pact between various tribal and religious groups known as
Mithaq-i-Madina (i.e. the Medinese treaty) which guaranteed full autonomy
to all tribes and religious groups like the Jews, the Muslims and other
pagan tribes. Thus all religious groups were free to follow their own law
and tradition and there was no coercion in such matters. The Holy Qur'an
also declared that "there is no compulsion in the matter of
religion" (2:256). The Mithaq-i-Madina was a sort of preliminary
constitution of the `state' of Madina which went beyond a tribal structure
and transcended the tribal boundaries in matters of common governance. It
also laid down that if Madina is attacked by an outside force all will
defend it together. Thus for the first time a concept of common territory
so necessary for a state to operate, was evolved. Before this, as pointed
out earlier, there was concept of tribal but not of territorial
boundaries.
The Prophet, in a way, took a revolutionary step, in dissolving tribal
bonds and laying more emphasis on ideological boundaries on one hand, and
territorial boundaries, on the other. However, the Prophet's aim was not
to build a political community but to build a religious community instead.
If Muslims evolved into a political community it was accidental rather
than essential. Hence the Qur'an lays more emphasis on values, ethic and
morality than on any political doctrines. It is Din which matters most
than governance. Allah says in the Qur'an that al-yauma akmaltu lakum
dinakum (i.e. I have perfected your Din today, 5:3). Thus what the Qur'an
gives us is a perfect din, not a perfect political system. The political
system had to evolve over a period of time and in keeping with the needs
and requirements.
One of the basic duties of the Muslims is "enforcing what is good and
combating what is evil". This clearly gives a moral and spiritual
direction to an Islamic society. The later emphasis on integral
association between religion and politics is, to the best of my knowledge,
totally absent in the Holy Qur'an. The Prophet was an enforcer of good par
excellence and he devoted his life to eradicating evil from society. But
he never aspired for political power. He was one of the great spiritual
persons born on this earth. He strove to inculcate spiritual power among
his companions. The following verse of the Qur'an enunciates the basic
philosophy of the Muslim community. "You are the best ummah (nation,
community) raised up for people: you enjoin good and forbid evil and you
believe in Allah." (3:109)
Thus it will be seen that the basic task of the Muslim ummah is to build a
moral society based on good and negation of evil. The unity of Muslims is
possible only if they remain basically a religious community engaged in
building a just society which has no elements of zulm (oppression and
injustice), though there may be different ways of approaching the truth.
The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that a society can persist with
kufr (unbelief) but not with zulm (injustice). The Qur'an also describes
Allah as Ahkam al-Hakimin (i.e. best of the Judges, 95:8). These are all
value-giving injunctions and hence give a direction to the society.
Islam never required Muslims to evolve into a political community.
Politics leads people basically to power-seeking projects and aspirations
for power brings about division rather than unity. The Qur'an required
Muslims to remain united and not entertain disputes weakening themselves.
"And obey Allah and His Messenger", the Qur'an says, "and
dispute not one with another, lest you get weak-hearted and your power
depart, and be steadfast. Surely Allah is with the steadfast." (8:46)
When some one aspires for political power they dispute with each other and
thus become weak which is what Muslims have been warned against. And in
the history of Islam the dispute between Muslims arose on the question of
political power. Who should wield political power and who should rule was
the main question after the death of the Holy prophet. Thus Muslims began
to divide on the question of power.
Various disputes arose between different groups of Muslims even leading to
bloodshed during the thirty years of what is known in Islamic history as
khilafat-i-Rashidah (period of the rightly guided rule). This thirty year
period is full of conflict and bloodshed. Three rightly guided Caliphs out
of four were assassinated. Why the spirit of unity was lost? Why wars
broke out between different groups and parties? It was mainly on account
of fights between different aspirants for power and pelf. The first signs
of these aspirations appeared immediately after the death of the Holy
Prophet.
The people of Mecca belonging to the tribe of Quraysh claimed their
superiority over others and said that an Imam can only be from the tribe
of Quraysh as they first embraced Islam and they were most cultured and
cultivated with adequate experience. The supporters of the Prophet from
Madina the Ansars, on the other, claimed that it is they who helped the
Prophet when he was driven out of Mecca due to severe persecution by the
people of Quraysh and hence they better deserve to succeed the prophet.
the Imam or Caliph, they claimed should be from amongst the Ansars. The
members of the family of the Prophet (PBUH) felt that 'Ali, the son-in-law
of the Prophet and leader of the Hashimites, was better qualified to
succeed the prophet.
Thus these fissures appeared as different groups aspired for leadership
and consequently for power associated with the'nascent Muslim state. It is
also necessary to stress here that a preliminary state structure came into
existence because it was historical and not religious need. We would like
to elaborate this a bit.
As every Muslim knows the religious duties of Muslims are to pray, fast,
pay the poor due (zakat), perform Haj and believe in tawheed (unity of
Allah) and not associate aught with Him. This is necessary for spiritual
control over oneself. A Muslim can perform these obligations wherever
he/she lives. There is no need for an Islamic state for this. A Muslim
living in a non-Muslim society can perform these obligations without let
or hindrance. And even when there is Muslim rule no ruler can forcibly
enforce these obligations on Muslims. Matters of 'ibadat (i.e. acts of
worship and spiritual exercises) cannot be coercively enforced by any
authority. It is a matter between human beings and Allah.
However, it is different matter as far as mu'amalat (i.e. relations
between human beings) are concerned. A state has to govern these mu'amalat
and ultimate aim of the state is to set up a society based on justice and
benevolence ('adl and ihsan in the Qur'anic terms). 'Adl and 'ihsan are
most fundamental human values and any state worth its salt has to strive
to establish a society based on these values. But for this no particular
form of state is needed. Even an honest monarch can do it. It is for this
reason that the holy Qur'an praises prophet-rulers like Hazrat Da'ud and
hazrat Sulayman who were kings but Allah's Prophet's too. Even Queen
Bilquis is praised for her just governance in the Qur'an though she was
not a prophet herself.
But the Qur'an is also aware that such just rulers are normally far and
few in between. The governance has to be as democratic as possible so that
all adults could participate in it. If governance is left to an
individual, or a monarch, the power may corrupt him or her as everyone
knows absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is for this reason that the
Qur'an refers to democratic governance when it says: "And those who
respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided)
by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what We have given them"
(42:38). Thus the mutual affairs (those pertaining to governance) should
be conducted only by mutual consultation which in contemporary political
parlance will be construed as democratic governance. Since in those days
there was no well defined practice of political democracy, the Qur'an
refers to it as `amruhum shura' baynahum i.e. affairs to be conducted
through mutual consultation which is very meaningful way of hinting at
democracy. The Qur'an is thus against totalitarian or monarchical rule.
Here a problem may arise as far as the Shi'ah sects are concerned. They
believe in the theory of imamah i.e. only an Imam from the progeny of the
Prophet's son-in-law and his daughter Fatima can inherit the Prophet (PBUH).
The Shi'ahs, in other words, reject the concept of khilafah i.e.
succession to the Prophet through election by the people. The right to
succession is confined only to the members of the Prophet's family and it
is available to no one else. It is no doubt the very basis of the Shi'ah
tradition and faith.
But this hardly changes the ethos of governance. The state in Iran is
today a democratically elected one. The President of Iran and the Majlis
(parliament) are elective in nature. In todays world there is no question
of a ruler coming from the Prophet's family. It was a different matter
when the controversy arose immediately after the death of the holy
Prophet. A group of people then did feel that Hazrat Ali, the son-in law
of the Prophet who was rigorously just, who had fought and won many an
Islamic battle, who was one of the bravest and most honest person should
have succeeded the Prophet. He was qualified for good governance in ways
more than one. Apart from being just, honest and brave, he was most
learned as well. The holy Prophet had described him as gateway to the city
of knowledge, Prophet being the city of knowledge himself. He was also
greatly confident of his knowledge. He often used to say saluni qabla
tafquduni i.e. ask me before you loose me.
In such circumstances it is not surprising that many people felt that Ali
was much more qualified to succeed the Prophet than any one else. His two
sons Hasan and Husain were also eminently qualified as they too were
inheritors of the virtues and qualities of the Prophet, they having been
trained and brought up by the Prophet and Ali. No one else has such an
excellent opportunity to have been so intimately connected to the Prophet
and the whole Islamic atmosphere around him.
In fact the theory of Imamah was based on this certainty of correct
religious guidance on one hand, and, a guarantee for good and just
governance, on the other. It is this inner certitude which gave rise to
the belief that the members of the Prophet's family are most suited to
guide and govern. The Shi'ahs moreover believe that the imams were
infallible and can do no wrong. But two things are again important to note
here. The governance by imam also could not be absolute in personal terms,
much less dictatorial or authoritarian. The Imam will also have to consult
the representative of the people as per the Qur'anic injunction in 3:158
in which even the Prophet (PBUH) is required to consult them.
This verse i.e. 3:158 is very important verse in laying down the guidance
for governance. It is a divine statement against dictatorship or
authoritarianism. The verse reads: "Thus it is by Allah's mercy that
thou art gentle on them. And hadst thou been rough, hard-hearted, they
would certainly would have dispersed from around thee. So pardon them and
ask protection for them, and consult them in (important matters)..."
Thus a ruler has to be gentle, not hard-hearted and rough and has to act
in consultation with the representatives of the people. This verse has
been addressed to the Prophet and no imam from his family can deviate from
this divine injunction.
Thus even an imam from the Prophet's family cannot be absolutist and has
to base his rule on democratic principles. Thus even the Shi'ah theory of
imamah cannot lead to absolutist or purely personal rule. Also, an imam
can be infallible in religious matters, in laying down religious rulings.
But in all secular and worldly matters he will be bound by democratic
structures of governance.
Secondly, the theory of imamah was much more relevant as far as the close
relatives of the Prophet who lived either with him or very close to his
period, was concerned. Today, more than fourteen hundred years after the
death of the holy Prophet, no one can claim such physical closeness to the
Prophet and its resultant benefits. And even within the first century of
the Prophet's death there were many claimants for the office of Imam and
the Shi'ahs were divided into number of sects and sub-sects what of today
fourteen hundred years after the death of the Prophet who can determine
the authenticity of the claimant to the office of the imamah? The twelve
Shi'ahs and also the Isma'ili-Mustalian Shi'ahs believe in seclusion of
their respective imams. No wonder than that Iran has adopted the elective
principle of governance which is what is the ultimate aim of the Islamic
scripture.
Also, once Islam spread to vast areas of the world outside the confines of
Arabia new ethnic and racial groups were added to its fold. This proved
both the strength as well as weakness of the Islamic society. Strength as
far as rich diversity was concerned and weakness as far as complex problem
and group conflicts it gave rise to. The group conflicts got greatly
intensified even within the limited period of Khilafat-i-Rashidah which
lasted for slightly less than thirty years.
During this period number of groups came into existence. The most powerful
group was of the tribe of Quraysh who were muhajirs (immigrants) to Madina
to which they migrated along with, or after the Prophet, to avoid
persecution in Mecca. They claimed to be the sabiqun al-awwalun i.e. those
who responded to the call of Islam earlier than others and also belonged
to the tribe of the Prophet. After the death of the Prophet they also came
out with the doctrine that the Khilafat be confined to the tribe of
Quraysh. However, the Quraysh were divided into several clans of which the
clans of Hashim (to which the Prophet himself belonged) and of Banu
Umayyah were at loggerheads. Among the Qurayshites the Hashimites and the
Umayyads fought against each other for the leadership of the nascent
Muslim state. Ali and his sons (particularly Hasan and Husain) who were
claimants to the leadership all belonged to the clan of Banu Hashim.
Then there were Ansars i.e. those who belonged to the tribes of Aws,
Khazraj of Madina and who had helped the Prophet by swearing allegiance to
the Prophet and helping him (hence Ansars i.e. helpers) migrate to Madina
and supporting him vis-a-vis his powerful opponents. The Ansars also
claimed leadership of the state after the death of the Prophet on the
basis that they had helped the Prophet and that without their help his
mission would not have survived. But the Qurayshites strongly resisted
their claim to the Khilafat. Then the leaders of the Ansars proposed a
compromise and said let one from the Quraysh and one from the Ansars share
the leadership but this was also turned down by the Qurayshites that it
would lead to more conflict and confusion.
The third group was of those Muslims who embraced Islam from amongst the
conquered non-Arab peoples of Iraqi or Persian or Egyptian or Syrian
origins. The emphasis of Islam on justice and equality of all believers
was great attraction for these non-Arab peoples. In course of a few years
large number of non-Arabs, most of them belonging to weaker sections of
society converted to Islam and demanded equal treatment. But despite
strong emphasis of Islam on equality of all believers irrespective of
their social status, nationality, colour or race, the ruling classes among
Muslims were not prepared to accord equal treatment to them. Most of the
Muslims were accepted Muslims only when they were made mawla (affiliate or
associate) of a tribe. Kufa and Basra in Iraq, Egypt, Damascus etc. became
centres of these non-Arab Muslims. Many of these non-Arab people were
those captured in various wars.
As for the first group i.e. the Qurayshites, they wielded power with the
second group of Ansars being their co-partners. These groups were
contented to a great extent though some sub-groups were not. The
Hashimites, for example, were a discontented group among the Qurayshites
as the non-Hashimites had captured power. Similarly among the Ansars who
were initially the allies of the Quraysh, the younger generation among
them felt neglected.
The fact that the second Caliph was assassinated by a discontented
non-Arab slave on the dispute about wages to be paid to him, showed the
beginning of the dissidence in early Islamic society. It reached its peak
during the period of 3rd Caliph Hazrat Usman when the non-Arab people from
Egypt, Kufa and Basra surrounded his house and murdered him in presence of
his wife when he was reciting the Holy Qur'an. Dr. Taha Husain in his book
Al-fitnah al-Kubra (The Great Insurrection) has dealt with this problem.
This uprising against Hazrat Usman was result of deep discontent found
among them as they felt completely neglected and found themselves
discriminated against.
Islam had tried to usher in a just society based on compassion,
sensitivity towards other fellow human beings, equality and human dignity.
However, the well entrenched vested interests, though pay lip service to
these values, in practice sabotage them in various ways and continue to
impose their own hegemony. The weaker sections and the downtrodden
attracted by the revolutionary thrust of Islam and its sensitivity towards
them, felt disillusioned and revolted. This revolt brought about near
anarchy in society and resulted in civil war in which thousands were
killed.
There was yet another group of Bedouins who lived in desert and resented
the hegemony of the urban elite. They considered the Khilafat as an urban
rule imposed on them. They were not accustomed to submission to any
authority. Thus in the Battle of Camel fought between the fourth Caliph
Hazrat Ali and Amir Mu'awiyah, the bedouins seceded from the army of
Hazrat Ali and raised the slogan "al-hukmu lillah" (i.e. Rule of
Allah). They adopted extreme postures and caused much bloodshed in the
early history of Islam.
Ultimately the Umayyads captured power and Khilafah was converted into
monarchy. Maulana Abul A'ala Maududi has thrown detailed light on it in
his book Khilafat aur Mulukiyyat. Thus we see that the Islamic society
went through great deal of turmoil and bloodshed and could not evolve a
universally acceptable form of state. When the Abbasids overthrew Umayyads
in the first half of the second century of Islam, there again was great
deal of bloodshed. When the Abbasids captured power, some Umayyads fled to
Spain and established their own rule there. Now there were two Caliphs
simultaneously in the Islamic world. Earlier the theory was that there
could be only one Caliph or Imam at a time. Now that theory had to be
revised in view of the empirical reality and two Caliphs at a time were
accepted. But still later at the end of 2nd century of Islam the Fatimid
Imams established their rule in Egypt and now there were several rulers at
a time in the Islamic world.
The Abbasid Caliphs were also reduced to nominal heads of the state as the
Buwayhids and Saljuqs captured powered and wielded real authority. They
came to be known as Sultans, the real power behind the Abbasid caliphs.
The Islamic political theory had to undergo change again. Now by and large
non-Quraysh were wielding power and hence the theory of Quraysh alone
becoming caliph had to be abandoned. Earlier the Kharijites (Seceders) who
were mainly Bedouins and hence non-Qurayshites had rejected the theory
that only a Quraysh could become the caliph.
Thus we see that the political theory of Islam had to undergo frequent
changes to accommodate the empirical reality. It is, therefore, not
possible to talk of an 'Islamic State' with a sense of finality. It is
extremely difficult task to evolve any ijma' (consensus of Muslims) on the
issue. Today also there are several Muslim countries with as varied forms
of state as monarchical to dictatorial or semi-dictatorial to democratic.
All these states, however, call themselves as 'Islamic State'.
The forms and structures of state are bound to vary from place to place
and time to time. It would be very difficult, for example, to create a
democratic state in a feudal society. Thus the Qur'an does not give much
importance to the form of state but greatly emphasises the nature of
society. While the state is contingent the society based on values like
justice, equality, compassion and human dignity is a necessity in Islam.
And needless to say in our time it is only a democratic state with widest
possible power-sharing arrangement which can guarantee such a society.
Also, as per the Qur'anic teachings the Islamic state should guarantee
equal rights to all ethnic, racial, cultural, tribal and religious groups.
The Qur'an considers racial, national, tribal and linguistic differences
as signs of Allah and indicative of identity (see 30:22). It also accepts
the right of other religious communities to follow their own religion and
it also accords equal status to men and women (see 33:35 and 2:228). The
Qur'an accepts plurality in society as will of Allah (5:48).
Thus in view of all this an Islamic state should have following
characteristics: 1) It should be absolutely non-discriminatory on the
basis of race, colour, language and nationality; 2) it should guarantee
gender equality; 3) it should guarantee equal rights to all religious
groups and accept plurality of religion as legitimate and 4) lastly it
should be democratic in nature whose basic premise will be human dignity
(17:70). Only those states which fulfill these criteria can be construed
to be Islamic in nature. Thus an Islamic state is the very epitome of
modern democratic pluralistic state.
Source: http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com
|
