- Purpose of Government in democracy
- Purpose of Government in Islam
- Is the caliph a wakil (representative) of the ummah?
It is well-known that the cornerstone of democracy is that sovereignty belongs to the people (popular sovereignty). Benjamin Franklin famously said, “In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.”[1]
This is why the US Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”[2]
The idea of popular sovereignty has its roots in medieval Europe during the age of ‘enlightenment’. As mentioned earlier, this post-renaissance period saw a number of philosophers, develop political theories in response to the tyranny of the catholic church, and the absolute monarchs who ruled on their behalf by ‘divine right’. These thinkers therefore, developed models which would curtail the influence of religion, and limit the powers of the monarchy.
One such theory, developed by Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau, is the idea of a social contract, which governed the relationship between the sovereign (ruler) and the people. A “social contract, in political philosophy, is an actual or hypothetical compact, or agreement, between the ruled or between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each.”[3]
Rousseau in his book ‘The Social Contract’ articulated the idea that sovereignty should be vested in the general will of the people, which is their collective will or common interest, i.e. the people are the lawgivers, and not the monarch or God. He says, “Sovereignty, being nothing less than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the Sovereign, who is no less than a collective being, cannot be represented except by himself: the power indeed may be transmitted, but not the will.”[4]
Islam also defines a ruling contract called the bay’ah or pledge of allegiance. This is a contract which governs the relationship between Muslims and the Islamic state. For those Muslims living under the authority of the state, the bay’ah is their citizenship contract with its ruler – the caliph.
The bay’ah is the method of appointing the caliph and legitimising his rule. It must be given with the consent of the ummah, who are free to choose whomever they wish to rule them, within the boundaries of the sharia rules. If the bay’ah and its conditions are absent, then the caliph has no authority to rule and will be considered a usurper. From the time of Abu Bakr to the last Ottoman caliph Abdul-Majed II, the bay’ah was always present and legally convened, albeit misapplied for much of Islamic history.
While on the surface, the bay’ah contract seems similar to the social contract, they are in fact worlds apart, as Ulrika Martensson has mentioned.[5] The “social contract” is not in line with Islamic thought because the premise in the “social contract” is that man is sovereign, whereas in Islam the sharia is sovereign.[6]
Shahrough Akhavi elaborates on this point: “Although social-contract theorists differ on a number of points, they concur that human beings choose to form associations to promote their interests. An important corollary is that tension exists between the individual’s inherent independence and freedom and the authority to which she or he must submit to achieve compliance with the goals of the contract. Occasionally, a theorist discusses God in the overall scheme of things, but the conception is deistic, so that the God who created the world does not intervene in its operation. For the rest, contractarian theories privilege natural law and natural rights, according to which the individual is treated as a social being who is fully rational, free, and independent. Fundamentally, three steps are taken in the process of making the social contract: (1) creating society; (2) creating the sovereign state; (3) discharging obligations and enjoying benefits.
Because mainstream Ash’ari Sunni Islam views God as continuously intervening in the operation of the universe and insists on the human being’s “acquisition” of his or her actions from such a God, it did not generate a theory of social contract. The theory was introduced in the 19th century as a convention to the Muslim world, when reformers such as the Egyptian Azharite scholar Rifa’ah Rafi’ al-Tahtawi (d. 1873) and the Young Ottoman writer Namik Kemal (d. 1888) became interested in contractarian theorists. This is not to say that Muslim traditions lack ideas and concepts that are important to the elaboration of a theory of social contract, such as justice, obligation, mutuality, and interests. But, before the 19th century, jurists would not have referred to individual Muslims ceding their discrete interests to the community as a whole and converting them into a collective interest for which that community would be the trustee.”[7]
Purpose of Government in democracy
Thomas Paine famously said, “Whatever the form or Constitution of Government may be, it ought to have no other object than the general happiness.”[8]
The pursuit of “happiness” in the western secular tradition is primarily concerned with the maximising of materialistic pleasures through the accumulation of wealth, Get Rich or Die Tryin’. A secular-liberal government will therefore focus primarily on implementing policies aimed at increasing economic growth (GDP), which in turn leads to an increase in its citizens’ material standard of living.
Tocqueville writing in the mid-19th century on democracy in America comments that, “The inhabitant of the United States attaches himself to the goods of this world as if he were assured of not dying, and he rushes so precipitately to grasp those that pass within his reach that one would say he fears at each instant he will cease to live before he has enjoyed them. He grasps them all but without clutching them, and he soon allows them to escape from his hands so as to run after new enjoyments… Death finally comes, and it stops him before he has grown weary of this useless pursuit of a complete felicity that always flees from him.”[9] He continues, “that their principal affair is to secure by themselves a government that permits them to acquire the goods they desire and that does not prevent them from enjoying in peace those they have acquired.”[10]
This is what the “social contract” and people being sovereign means in theory. In reality though this is far from the case.
In America the legislative branch is Congress which theoretically represents the will of the people, because America is a democracy, and in a democracy the people are sovereign. It’s clear however that those sitting in Congress do not represent the people. They represent their rich and wealthy backers who fund their million-dollar election campaigns. These backers are not only corporations, banks and hedge funds but also include foreign states, most notably Israel which through AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) funds the campaigns of many sitting in Congress. This support is not hidden and recently AIPAC spent a record $14.5 million to defeat Representative Jamaal Bowman who was a critic of Israel.[11] US President Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation in 1961 warned of this type of influence when he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”[12]
US Senator Bernie Sanders writing in the Guardian said, “Today, half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, 500,000 of the very poorest among us are homeless, millions are worried about evictions, 92 million are uninsured or underinsured, and families all across the country are worried about how they are going to feed their kids. Today, an entire generation of young people carry an outrageous level of student debt and face the reality that their standard of living will be lower than their parents’. And, most obscenely, low-income Americans now have a life expectancy that is about 15 years lower than the wealthy. Poverty in America has become a death sentence.
Meanwhile, the people on top have never had it so good. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 92%, and the 50 wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of American society – 165 million people. While millions of Americans have lost their jobs and incomes during the pandemic, over the past year 650 billionaires have seen their wealth increase by $1.3tn.”[13]
This is the shocking state of western societies and what happens when a tiny subset of people take on sovereignty for themselves and disregard their Creator’s guidance. Allah ta’ala says,
وَلَوِ ٱتَّبَعَ ٱلْحَقُّ أَهْوَآءَهُمْ لَفَسَدَتِ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ وَٱلْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ ۚ بَلْ أَتَيْنَـٰهُم بِذِكْرِهِمْ فَهُمْ عَن ذِكْرِهِم مُّعْرِضُونَ
“If the truth were to follow their whims and desires, the heavens and the earth and everyone in them would have been brought to ruin. No indeed! We have given them their Reminder, but they have turned away from it.”[14]
Purpose of Government in Islam
Islam on the other hand has a very different view towards “happiness” and rejects the notion that the pursuit of the material value is the ultimate goal in life. Hamza Tzortzis writes, “The primary purpose of the human being is not to enjoy a transitory sense of happiness; rather, it is to achieve a deep internal peace through knowing and worshipping God. This fulfilment of the Divine purpose will result in everlasting bliss and true happiness. So, if this is our primary purpose, other aspects of human experience are secondary.”[15]
This concept of happiness gives a completely different view towards the purpose of government in Islam, as Imam Ghazali said, “Well-ordered religious affairs are achieved through knowledge and worship. These cannot be achieved without the health of the body, the maintenance of life, the fulfillment of needs – such as those for clothing, shelter and food – and security from the onset of calamities. How true this is:
مَنْ أَصْبَحَ مِنْكُمْ مُعَافًى فِي جَسَدِهِ آمِنًا فِي سِرْبِهِ عِنْدَهُ قُوتُ يَوْمِهِ فَكَأَنَّمَا حِيزَتْ لَهُ الدُّنْيَا
“When a man wakes up safe among his family, with a healthy body, and in possession of his daily sustenance, it is as if the whole world is made available to him.”[16]
A man does not achieve security in his life, body, wealth, home, and sustenance under all circumstances but [only] under some. Religious affairs cannot flourish unless security is achieved in these important and necessary matters. Otherwise, if one spends all his time being occupied with protecting himself against the swords of oppressors, and with winning his sustenance from exploiters, when would he find time for working and seeking knowledge, which are his means for achieving happiness in the hereafter?
Therefore well-ordered worldly affairs – I mean the fulfillment of needs – are a condition for well-ordered religious affairs.[17]…a sultan is necessary for achieving well-ordered worldly affairs, and well-ordered worldly affairs are necessary for achieving well-ordered religious affairs, and well-ordered religious affairs are necessary for achieving happiness in the hereafter, which is decidedly the purpose of all the prophets.”[18]
Aisha Bewley says, “A major problem lies in the fact that there has been a change of view in the purpose of the state– brought about by forced immersion in Western political principles. In fiqh, the principal function of government is to enable the individual Muslim to practise the deen and fulfill his obligations to Allah – which, of course, also entails certain societal obligations [mu’amilat]. This is, at the bottom line, the sole purpose of the state for which purpose alone it is established by Allah, for which purpose alone those in authority possess.”[19]
The primary function of an Islamic government is therefore completely different to that of a secular-liberal government. An Islamic government is there to facilitate the worship (‘ibadah) of Allah ta’ala alone, leading to its Muslim citizens achieving true happiness which is pursuing Allah’s pleasure. He ta’ala says,
وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَٱلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ جَنَّـٰتٍۢ تَجْرِى مِن تَحْتِهَا ٱلْأَنْهَـٰرُ خَـٰلِدِينَ فِيهَا وَمَسَـٰكِنَ طَيِّبَةًۭ فِى جَنَّـٰتِ عَدْنٍۢ ۚ وَرِضْوَٰنٌۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ أَكْبَرُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ هُوَ ٱلْفَوْزُ ٱلْعَظِيمُ
“Allah has promised the believers, both men and women, Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there forever, and splendid homes in the Gardens of Eternity, and—above all—the pleasure of Allah. That is ˹truly˺ the ultimate triumph.”[20]
An Islamic government is a trust given to it by the ummah through the bay’ah. Politicians, ministers and rulers are not there to line their own pockets at the expense of the people, as we see in most countries of the world today whether Muslim or non-Muslim. Abu Dharr al-Ghaffari narrates,
قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَلاَ تَسْتَعْمِلُنِي قَالَ فَضَرَبَ بِيَدِهِ عَلَى مَنْكِبِي ثُمَّ قَالَ “ يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ إِنَّكَ ضَعِيفٌ وَإِنَّهَا أَمَانَةٌ وَإِنَّهَا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ خِزْىٌ وَنَدَامَةٌ إِلاَّ مَنْ أَخَذَهَا بِحَقِّهَا وَأَدَّى الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ فِيهَا “
“I said: O Messenger of Allah, Why do you not appoint me as an ‘amil (government post)?” He ﷺ patted me on the shoulder with his hand and said, “O Abu Dharr, you are a weak man and it is a trust (amanah) and it will be a cause of disgrace and remorse on the Day of Resurrection except for the one who takes it up with a full sense of responsibility and fulfills what is entrusted to him.”[21]
Is the caliph a wakil (representative) of the ummah?
The caliph cannot take office without the bay’ah given to him through free choice and consent by the ummah. In a general sense the caliph represents Islam and the people at home and abroad but in a strictly legal sense this representation is not a contract of wakalah (representation). If the bay’ah was a contract of wakalah as it is in democracy, then the people would have the right to remove the caliph even without a valid sharia reason as Hashim Kamali mentions. He says, “government in Islam is a trust (amanah) and the head of state is a representative (wakil) of the electorate, entrusted with the exercise of power that belongs to the community. In a contract of wakalah, each of the contracting parties is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally even without the consent of the other party.”[22]
Abdul-Qadeem Zallum comments on such a scenario, “the Ummah does not give the bay’ah to the Khaleefah as if hired (ajeer) by her to execute what she wishes, as is the case in the democratic system. He is rather given the bay’ah on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, so as to execute the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ i.e. to implement the shar’a and not what the people wish.”[23]
This does not mean the caliph cannot be removed once he is appointed to office. What it means is that he remains in office as along as he abides by the law i.e. the sharia. If he violates the sharia then he is removed from office because it is the sharia which is sovereign and not the people. Al-Mawardi says, “So if the Imam fulfils the rights of the Ummah, as we have described above, he will have executed the claim of Allah, may He be exalted, regarding their rights and their duties: in which case they have a duty to obey and support him as long as his state does not change. Two changes in a person’s state will exclude him from the Imamate: the first of these is a lack of decency and the second is a physical deficiency.”[24]
This is clear from the sunnah and the practice of the rightly guided caliphs. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
ثَلاَثَةٌ لاَ يُكَلِّمُهُمُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ، وَلاَ يُزَكِّيهِمْ، وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
“There will be three types of people whom Allah will neither speak to them on the Day of Resurrection nor will purify them from sins, and they will have a painful punishment.”[25]
One of these three people is:
وَرَجُلٌ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا لاَ يُبَايِعُهُ إِلاَّ لِدُنْيَاهُ، إِنْ أَعْطَاهُ مَا يُرِيدُ وَفَى لَهُ، وَإِلاَّ لَمْ يَفِ لَهُ
“a man who gives bay’ah to an Imam only for worldly benefits, if the Imam gives him what he wants, he abides by his pledge, otherwise he does not fulfill his pledge.”[26]
If people had the right to remove the government without a valid sharia excuse, then this could lead to western backed “colour revolutions” toppling the caliph in favour of a pro-western “un-Islamic” regime. The Middle East saw numerous coups and counter-coups throughout the 20th century by the western countries lead by America. These regime-change policies continue to this day, and no doubt this will be the primary focus of the west once a future caliphate emerges on the world stage.
Near the end of Uthman bin Affan’s rule, anti-government demonstrations occurred which culminated in the assassination and martyrdom of Uthman, and ignited years of fitna and civil war. Imam al-Zuhri said, “Uthman ruled for twelve years as caliph, during the first six years of which the people did not criticize him for anything, and he was more beloved to Quraysh than ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab because ‘Umar had been very strict with them, but ‘Uthman was lenient and generous towards them. Then the turmoil began after that. The Muslim historians call the events that happened in the second half of ‘Uthman’s reign (30-35 AH) the fitnah (turmoil), which ended in the martyrdom of ‘Uthman.”[27]
These anti-government demonstrations were an organized campaign instigated primarily by Abdullah ibn Sab’a[28] and his supporters. Similar tactics were used that we see today with a misinformation campaign spread against Uthman falsely accusing him of violating the sharia, nepotism and oppression. When the rebel groups finally occupied Madinah demanding the removal of the caliph, Uthman refused. This is because the rebels were hypocrites who had no legitimate sharia reason for this removal. In addition Uthman was ordered by the Prophet ﷺ to remain in office if he ever was given the responsibility of khilafah.
It was narrated from ‘Aisha that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “O ‘Uthman, if Allah places you in authority over this matter (as the caliph) someday and the hypocrites want to rid you of the garment with which Allah has clothed you (i.e., the position of caliph), do not take it off.” He said that three times. (One of the narrators) Nu’man said: “I said to ‘Aishah: ‘What kept you from telling the people that?’ She said: ‘I was made to forget it.’”[29]
A similar incident occurred during the Umayyad period, when opposition to the caliph Al-Walid II (r. 125H/743CE – 126H/744CE) culminated in his removal from office. Unlike in Uthman’s time, the grievances against Al-Walid were legitimate because Al-Walid had violated the sharia. This was made clear by Yazid bin ‘Anbasah who was sent to speak with Al-Walid while he in his fortress in al-Bakhra (modern day Homs governate Syria). Al-Walid said to Yazid, “O brother of the Sakasik! Did I not increase your stipends? Did I not remove onerous taxes from you? Did I not make gifts to your poor and give servants to your cripples?” Yazid replied, “We don’t have any personal grudge against you. We are against you because you have violated the sacred ordinances of Allah, because you have drunk wine, because you have debauched the mothers of your father’s sons, and because you have held Allah’s command in contempt.”[30]
Even though Al-Walid II had provided lavishly for many of the influential tribes, his violation of the sharia rules was a red-line that can never be crossed.
The caliph will from time to time will have to make unpopular decisions for the sake of Islam, such as declaring war to protect oppressed peoples outside the state. Such a policy will entail the citizens of the Islamic state making huge sacrifices in pursuit of this endeavour, as happened during the Islamic conquests of the past. This was only possible because the ummah understood that it was Allah ta’ala and Islam that was the centre of their lives. Allah ta’ala says,
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ٱسْتَجِيبُوا۟ لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ
“O believers! Respond to Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.”[31]
Therefore, in origin the ummah cannot remove the Imam (caliph) and must obey him. It is only with a violation of sharia that will lead to the caliph’s potential impeachment. Al-Mawardi divides these violations of sharia in to two, lack of decency and physical deficiency[32], which encompasses all seven contractual conditions of the bay’ah. This again reiterates the point that the sharia and not the ummah is sovereign.
Notes
[1] Benjamin Franklin, The Political Thought of Benjamin Franklin. 2003. Edited by Ralph Ketchum; Hackett Publishing, p.398.
[2] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/preamble
[3] https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
[4] Jean Jacques Rousseau, ‘The Social Contract,’ Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain, p.18
[5] Martensson, U. (2017). Social Contract Theory in Islamic Sources?. Comparative Islamic Studies, 10(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1558/cis.32431
[6] It is important to note that the concept of sovereignty (السِيادَة) is a political and legal concept, i.e. related to temporal life (dunya) and not the hereafter. The Qur’an uses the word ٱلْمُلْكَ which is sometimes translated as sovereignty. This is completely different to the word السِيادَة which in origin is a western term.
[7] Akhavi, Shahrough. “Sunni Modernist Theories of Social Contract in Contemporary Egypt.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 35, no. 1 (2003): 23–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3879926
[8] Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man [1790] (1996, p. 164).
[9] Alexis De Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America,’ The University of Chicago Press, 2002, p.506; first published in 1835.
[10] Ibid, p.511
[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/aipac-bowman-latimer.html
[12] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address#:~:text=In%20the%20councils%20of%20government,power%20exists%20and%20will%20persist
[13] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sanders
[14] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Muminun, ayah 71
[15] Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, ‘The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage of Atheism,’ FB Publishing, San Clemente, p.177
[16] Sunan Ibn Majah 4141, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4141
[17] Al-Ghazali’s Moderation in Belief: Al-Iqtiṣād fi al-I‘tiqād, translated by A M Yaqub, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, p.230
[18] Ibid, p.229
[19] Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, ‘Democratic Tyranny and the Islamic Paradigm,’ Diwan Press, 1st edition, 2018, Kindle Edition, p.89
[20] Holy Qur’an, Surah at-Tawbah, ayah 72
[21] Sahih Muslim 1825, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1825
[22] Hashim Kamali, ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective,’ The Islamic Texts Society, 2011, p.280
[23] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.44
[24] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.29
[25] Sahih Bukhari 7212, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7212
[26] Ibid
[27] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat 1/39-47 quoted in Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallabi, ‘The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ Darussalam, p.447
[28] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ Darussalam, p.484
[29] Ibn Majah 112, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:112
[30] Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, ‘The History of Al-Tabari’, translation of Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk, State University of New York Press, Volume XXVI, p.153
[31] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Anfal, ayah 24
[32] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.29
Islamic Civilization 