|
A More Detailed Look at the Qur`anic Principle of Shura
(Consultation)
By:
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(1983)
In a
previous article, it was shown that military dictatorship,
though it is unfortunately acceptable to many Muslims, has
absolutely no legitimacy in Islam; for, it violates basic Islamic
principles, notably the principle of shura or
consultation. Now in the present article we look at this lofty
Qur'anic principle in greater detail, discussing some of the
questions that arise in its practical application. Our discussion
will center around the following four basic questions: best replica watches
a) Who should be
consulted?
b) What matters should
be decided by consultation?
c) How should
consultation be carried out?
d) Is consultation a
religious obligation?
Who should be consulted?
One of the Qur'anic verses formulating
the principle of consultation reads:
"their (i.e. Muslims') affairs
are conducted by consultation among them" (42:38)
These words quite naturally
suggest that all
Muslims be involved in the process of consultation. For, if we
restricted consultation to any particular class or group in the
Muslim society, then consultation cannot be said to be among Muslims
(bayna hum) as the Qur'anic words require, but will be
among members of the particular class or group to which it is
restricted. We are led to the same conclusion by the Islamic
principles of justice, equality before the law and brotherhood among
men, since these noble principles would be manifestly violated if we
systematically excluded a section of the Ummah from
the process of consultation.
The practice in the Muslim society
of the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the rightly guided caliphs
also points in the same direction. During almost the entire ministry
of the Prophet (pbuh) most of the Muslim resided in the same city in
which the Prophet (pbuh) himself resided, either Makkah or Medina.
They were in constant touch with each other and with the Prophet (pbuh).
In Medina, where Muslim numbers gradually increased to thousands,
Muslims daily visited the mosque of the Prophet and between the
prayers, if need arose, they talked about various matters that
concerned them. They also made their views on these matters known to
the Prophet (pbuh) who was easily available to them and who had been
divinely instructed to take counsel with them (3:159).
We can thus say that in an informal
sort of way all
members of the first Islamic
society in history were directly involved in the process of
consultation.
After the departure of the Prophet (pbuh) from
this world, the affairs of the Ummah (Muslim community)
continued to be conducted by a process of consultation involving all
Muslims, although, now because of a tremendous increase in the
number of Muslims, the method of consultation underwent some change,
becoming out of necessity somewhat indirect: the Companions of the
Prophet (pbuh) who, because of their association with the founder of
Islam and their noble character, naturally enjoyed great prestige
and trust in the Ummah, first consulted with the people and
then consulted among themselves to reach decisions on public
matters.
We must recall that the Companions were
scattered throughout the vast Islamic lands and as a group they were
in touch with the entire Ummah. Almost every Muslim knew at
least one of the Companions as a teacher, army general or city
administrator. Daily they met the people in the local mosque, where,
as in Medina in the days of the Prophet (pbuh), the people discussed
matters of their concern and made their views known to the
Companions in their midst. In matters that were within their
jurisdiction the Companions duly took these views into account while
on other matters they passed people's views on to the regional
governors or to the central government in Medina. In this way,
during the time of the rightly guided caliphs, the affairs of the
Ummah were run by persons who enjoyed widespread trust and
confidence among the people and were in constant and close
consultation with them.
It was only after
the first four caliphs that consultation began to be restricted or
ignored. By this time, most of the Prophet's (pbuh) leading
Companions had passed away and there did not naturally emerge among
Muslims a similar group which automatically enjoyed widespread trust
among the people and could take charge of the affairs of the
Ummah. At this stage of Muslim history the requirement that the
Muslims' affairs are to be run by "consultation among them" could
have been fulfilled only if an electoral process had been found
whereby a group of trusted persons could be creditably chosen, and
confidently entrusted with the affairs of the Ummah. However,
it is one of the most tragic facts of history that before Muslims
could develop and apply such an electoral process, kingship entered
Islam and severely restricted the role of consultation in Islamic
societies. Not only kings and sultans now came to power without any
consultation with the people but they also in large measure ignored
it in running the affairs of the state after coming to power. The
best they ever did was to consult persons in their own circle of
supporters, although even then they reserved the right to set aside
any recommendations if these recommendations did not suit them.
In their violation or perversion of the
Qur'anic principle of shura (consultation) the
rulers were greatly helped by
officially-sponsored "ulama" who gave legal rulings and
even forged traditions in the blessed names of the Prophet and his
Companions justifying the rulers' corrupt policies. Some of these
misguided legal rulings and forged traditions are still believed by
many Muslims and military rulers who exploit them to the fullest to
maintain their un-Islamic and repressive hold on power.
One of the most obscene rulings
given by some officially-sponsored "ulama" in the past is
that Muslims cannot rebel against a Muslim ruler no matter what he
does. This means, for example, that if a hypocrite Jew calls himself
a Muslim, joins the army of a Muslim country, rises to the top
position in the army, seizes power by force, and then systematically
moves to sell the country, the Muslims can do nothing but watch the
destruction of their country. Apart from the obvious absurdity of
such a ruling, it is also contradicted by a ruling of Hadrat 'Umar
who, we can safely assume, knew more about Islam than the court "ulamas"
of later kings and sultans. It is reported that during the meeting
at Saqifa, where Hadrat Abu Bakr was nominated as the first caliph,
Hadrat 'Umar said: "You are free to kill anyone who calls for the
leadership of himself or others without consulting the Muslims." In
another report 'Umar's son, 'Abd Allah bin 'Umar, relates that
before his death his father told the people he appointed for
choosing his successor: "You must kill anyone of you who claims
command over you without consulting the Muslims."(1) Thus
at least against those rulers who come to power without due
consultation, Muslims are free to rebel.
It is now time that we undo what
through the centuries autocratic rulers and their court ulama have
done. We must return to the
simple Qur'anic teachings about justice, equality of all men and
women before the law and the need for genuine shura
(consultation) and realize that all Muslims in an Islamic
society have the right to participate in the running of their
affairs through a process of consultation.
What matters should be
decided by consultation
After having considered above the
question as to who should be involved in the process of consultation
let us now address ourselves to the second question raised above,
namely, what matters should be decided by consultation. Again, the
only natural and sound way of understanding the Qur'anic words
"their affairs are run by
consultation among them" is that there
must not be any restriction in principle on the matters to be
decided by consultation among Muslims, in other words that
Muslims
should decide all
matters by consultation. One
restriction that comes to mind and is often mentioned is that
matters already decided by the Islamic Shariah should not be subject
to consultation and that the results of shura should not be
in conflict with Islamic teachings. But a moment's reflection would
show that this is not really a restriction in principle to
consultation, for in a Muslim society it has already been freely
decided that the teachings of Islam will be respected at all times.
By declaring la ilaha illa Allah Muhammad ar-rasul Allah
(there is no deity by God Alone and Muhammad is His messenger)
members of a Muslim society have already held a sort of referendum
and unanimously voted to live by Islam. Thus on matters decided by
the Islamic Shari'ah (Law and jurisprudence) a consultation
has in a way already taken place and led to the conclusion that on
those matters Islamic decisions are to be followed and, furthermore,
that the results of shura will in no way conflict with
Islamic teachings.
Here, of course, there arises the
question of interpreting Islamic teachings, for, although all
Muslims agree that they should live by Islamic teachings, they may
often understand some of these teachings in different ways. In some
cases it may be possible for various groups or individuals in the
society to follow their different interpretations of Islam, but in
other cases it may be necessary that the society as a whole reaches
a single decision. For example, there is nothing wrong or harmful if
various Muslim groups prayed according to their particular
interpretations of the Prophetic Traditions. But clearly if the
question arose whether in a particular international conflict, war
or peace with compromise is the Islamic course of action then a
Muslim society as a whole must reach a decision. How are we to
arrive at a single decision when this second type of questions of
interpretation arise? The answer given by the fuqaha (Muslim
jurists) from the earliest days is: by
consultation.
Thus in principle there is no
restriction on what is subject to consultation. There, however,
remains a practical difficulty, namely, the difficulty of consulting
millions of people in all the numerous small or big matters that
arise in the collective life of a people. This difficulty can be
circumvented by deciding important matters through consultation with
all (adult and mentally sound) members of the society (in the form
of referendums, elections, etc.) while leaving other matters in the
hands of competent persons who demonstrably enjoy the trust and
confidence of the people.
If all matters are to be decided by
shura, the same must be true of the important matter of choosing
a ruler or a governing body. Hadrat 'Umar, therefore, expressly
stated in the historic meeting at Saqifa that the divine "command
(in the choice of the caliph) is shura." Commenting on this
Mohamed S. El-Awa of the University of Riyad says:
"Thus, no ruler is to
be chosen and put in power without the will of the Ummah.
Nor shall the Ummah be deprived of this right under the
pretence of preserving its unity, protecting its interests,
reviving its glories or any similar claims. In this respect, the
decree of 'Umar b. al-Khattab was very clear when he advised that
anyone who tried to force himself or someone else into a position
of command without the consent of Muslims based on consultation
with them must be punished like those who stir up dissention (fitnah) on
earth, that is, `you are free to kill him'."(2)
Some military generals after they seized
power in a Muslim country have in the past stated that they were
trying to establish a government like that of Hadrat 'Umar in their
country. A truly noble intention but one in which unfortunately
these generals could not possibly be sincere, for it is clear from
the above that by seizing power and holding
onto it through military force they in fact did great violence to
Hadrat 'Umar's Islamic political thinking. In fact, their
actions were a crime that according to Hadrat 'Umar's view is
punishable by death. The same is true of those self-styled "leaders"
who by-passed the Muslim people and even urged these military
generals to seize power without due consent of people. Some of them
even claimed that they enjoyed "tacit" support
of their people but this claim is
falsified by their own reluctance to hold elections, for why
would they hesitate to hold elections if they really thought that
they had the support of the people? It only stands to reason that
the support for a ruler should be more than supposedly "tacit"; it
should be demonstrable, for only then can he enjoy that genuine
trust and confidence of the people which is required in Islam and is
needed for governing effectively.
In the present situation when amongst us
there does not exist a respected group like the Companions,
naturally enjoining widespread trust among the people,
the only way a ruler can have demonstrable
public support is by coming to power through free and fair general
elections or by being chosen by a body which itself derives its
authority through such elections.
Coming to power any other way or bringing someone else to power will
amount to a violation of shura which, according to Hadrat 'Umar's
view, is punishable by death.
How should consultation
be carried out
Thus, to summarize what we have said so
far, a Muslim society should run its
affairs by a process of consultation that involves all members of
the society and covers all matters of public concern. In
practice, this requirement may be fulfilled if all the important
matters are decided by direct general consultation in the form of
referendums, general elections, etc. while leaving other matters in
the hands of people's elected representatives, with the whole
political process taking place under the supervision of competent
persons, learned in Islam and demonstrably enjoying the confidence
and trust of the people. The exact form of such a political system
based on consultation is something that Muslim law-makers in various
Islamic countries need to work out for themselves. Among the
questions that need to be considered are:
-
Which matters should be decided by
general consultation and which matters may be entrusted to a body
or bodies of elected representatives?
-
What should be the ratio of the number
of representatives to the population of a country?
-
How will the legislative, executive
and judiciary powers be exercised and how will they coordinate
with each other?
-
How will the council of Islamic
scholars be formed to ensure that the laws and policies of the
country accord with Islamic teachings?
Answers to these and other relevant
questions have been worked out in detail in at least one Islamic
country: the Islamic Republic of Iran. We strongly recommend that
interested brothers and sisters read a copy of the Iranian
constitutional law and its elaborations. A complete reading of this
material will Inshah Allah convince any one that an Islamic
society run on the principle of consultation and other Islamic
principles is possible Replica Breitling Watches
.
Consultation is
obligatory
A great many Muslims are either
unaware of the Qur'anic principle of consultation or regard it as
one of the less important optional principle of Islam which may be
ignored. But the opinion of the majority of Muslim jurists is that
Shura is part of aza'im al-ahkam (commandments) which
is obligatory on both the ruling authority and the Muslim people.(3)
It is obligatory on the ruling authority
in that they should express their views on matters of public concern
whenever they have any views, even if they are not asked to express
them, that they make sure that the ruling authority assumes power
and functions in consultation with them and that they remove a
ruling authority which either comes to power without due
consultation or operates without such consultation.
The above opinion of the fuqaha
(Muslim jurists) is derived first of all from the two Qur'anic
verses where shura is expressly mentioned (3:159, 42:38). In
the first verse the Prophet (pbuh) is told to "consult them on
matters (of public concern)." This is a command and clearly makes
shura obligatory for the Prophet. But that means that it is also
obligatory for all other Muslim rulers, for the Prophet was in fact
least in need of shura. He was bestowed with such wisdom,
knowledge, understanding, love and concern for people's welfare as
no other ruler ever had in the past or will ever have in the future.
Moreover, he enjoyed the benefit of revelation through which
difficult matters were resolved by God Himself - a benefit that no
subsequent Muslim ruler has enjoyed or will enjoy. Consequently, if
shura was obligatory for the Prophet, there is all the more
reason that it be obligatory for all subsequent Muslim rulers.
In the second verse (which reads:
"their affairs are run by
shura among them") shura
is treated as an essential quality of the believers. This quality is
mentioned among other qualities such as responsiveness to Allah,
performing salah (obligatory Prayers), spending in charity,
all of which are religious obligations in Islam.
The obligation of shura has
several practical implications for the ruling authority as well as
for the community at large.
(I) One
such implication for the ruler is that he should come to power by
the consent of the people. This is because:
Firstly,
the coming to power of a ruler is such an important event, both for
the ruler himself and for the people that it cannot be outside the
scope of the obligation of shura; and
Secondly,
a ruler who forces his way to power without due consent of the
people has obviously no respect for the wishes and views of the
people and therefore any shura that he subsequently practices
cannot be sincere and genuine. The Prophet (pbuh) himself, although
he was chosen to be a prophet by God Almighty, did not become ruler
of the people until they, by their own free choice became Muslims
and thus accepted him as their head. Indeed, there never has been
another ruler in history whose rule was accepted by the people as
freely and as wholeheartedly as that of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh).
(II) Another
implication of the obligatory nature of shura is that
conclusions reached by shura are binding on the ruler, for if
after shura the ruler can set aside its conclusions whenever
he wishes, then shura ceases to be a serious obligatory
principle and becomes a meaningless exercise. The binding character
of the conclusions reached by shura is also established by
the practice of the Prophet (pbuh) who, unless otherwise guided by
revelation, used to follow whatever course of action was suggested
by shura, even though it conflicted with his own judgment.
For example, he engaged in the battle of Uhud on the basis of the
general trend of opinion among the people even though he himself
preferred to stay in Medina and defend it from inside. The events
during this battle proved that the Prophet's own view was more
correct and sound. Despite this, the verse commanding shura
was revealed after these events and as a comment upon them. In this
way the Holy Qur'an meant to teach that even though public opinion
can sometimes be wrong, still it is better to run Muslim affairs in
accordance with it.
A relevant question that arises here is
what should the ruler do if in his view the conclusions of shura
are against Islam. This situation can arise in two ways:
a) The prevalent opinion in a Muslim
society on a matter is based on an interpretation of relevant texts
which conflicts with the interpretation held by the ruler. In such
an event the prevalent interpretation is binding on the ruler(4) and
he should either accept it or resign. This is because after the
Prophet (pbuh), interpretation of the Islamic teachings is a matter
to be decided not by any one individual such as the ruler but by the
Ummah or by a body of competent scholars who have the trust
of the Ummah.
b) There may, however, also arise a
situation in which the question is not that of interpretation of
basic texts of Islam but of pure rejection by a majority of people
of an Islamic principle, injunction or doctrine. An example of this
- and probably the only example of this - occurred soon after the
death of the Prophet when a majority of people who had recently
accepted Islam refused to pay zakah (welfare tax, which is
also a fundamental religious duty). They did not do so because they
interpreted the Holy Qur'an or the Prophetic Traditions in a
particular way but because they simply did not want anything to do
with zakah. When such a rejection of an Islamic principle,
injunction or doctrine occurs, the society in question immediately
ceases to be a Muslim society, for a Muslim society is by definition
one that agrees to live by (all) the teachings of Islam. In this
case, the ruler and other Muslims with him, who would now be in a
minority, should first try their best to convince the people of the
error of their position. If they fail in doing so, then they should
separate from the majority and start da'wah and jihad
in the same way in which they would carry out da'wah and
jihad in any other predominantly non-Muslim society. Hadrat Abu
Bakr did just that to those who refused to pay zakah, but
fortunately, the people saw the light after a single battle.
Actually, the above situation is not
very likely to happen again. History has proved that apart from the
one incident in the time of Hadrat Abu Bakr (which was the result of
temporary ignorance on the part of new converts) the people have
generally been keener to live by Islam than the rulers. Therefore, a
question more pertinent than the one considered above is: what
happens if a ruler refuses to bow to an Islamic principle or
injunction. The answer is that people should remove him, with force
if necessary, and then try him according to Islamic Law.
(III) The
third and last practical implication of the obligatory Qur'anic
principle of shura that needs to be mentioned here is that
the people must express their views on how certain matters should or
should not be handled. For clearly, if people do not express their
views, then these such opinions cannot be taken into consideration
in running the affairs of the society and shura cannot become
a functioning principle. And for people to express their views, they
must possess the freedom to do so. No one should in any way be
victimized for holding any opinions nor punished for expressing
them, except in accordance with laws that are either derived from
Islam through prevalent interpretation of Islamic teachings or are
legislated with the fullest backing of the people. If any ruling
authority restricts freedom of expression in any other way, then
people, in fulfillment of their duty of forbidding wrong(5),
should move forthwith to correct the situation, by use of force if
necessary.(6)
Notes
(1)Al-Musannaf
by 'Abd al-Razzaq, Beirut 1972, edited by Shaikh Habib al-Raman al
A'azami, Vol. 5, pp. 445, 446 & 481.
(2)On
the Political System of the Islamic State, pp. 35-36.
(3)See
Mohamed S. El-Awa, op. cit. pp. 89-90.
(4)This
of course does not hold in the case of the Prophet (pbuh).
(5)That
forbidding wrong is a collective duty (fard kifayah) of the
Muslim Ummah is clear from the following verse from Surah Al
Imran:
"Let there (always) be a group
among you that invites to all that is good and beneficial (al-khayr) and
enjoins right and forbids wrong and it is they (who have such a
group among them) who will prosper." (3:104)
(6)If
peaceful persuasion does not work in stopping public wrong, then the
use of force is recommended in Islam. The force that the people can
use against a ruling authority bent on doing a wrong may take the
form of armed revolution. |