Sovereignty (siyadah سِيادَة or hakimiyyah حاكِمِيَّة) and Authority (sultah سُلْطَة) are the foundations (usul أُصُول) of the Islamic ruling system. In fact, these are the foundations of all ruling systems in existence whether Islamic, democratic, monarchical or dictatorial. Sovereignty and authority will ultimately define the principles (qawa’id قَواعِد) which branch off from these usul and which underpin all of the state’s institutions (ajhizah أَجْهِزَة).

Therefore, we need to discuss these usul in order to understand the shape of the Islamic ruling system, and to give us a yardstick for assessing any ruling system or state – whether today or in history – to see if it conforms to Islam or not. Actions speak louder than words, and simply putting the shahada or other Islamic emblem on a flag, or calling oneself an “Islamic Republic” doesn’t make a government “Islamic”.

What is sovereignty?

Before we begin, it’s important to note that the sovereignty (siyadah) we are discussing here, is not Allah’s sovereignty (مُلْك) over man, life and the universe, which is a concept related to ‘aqeeda (belief). Allah ta’ala says,

لِلَّهِ مُلْكُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَمَا فِيهِنَّ ۚ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌۢ

“To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the dominion (mulk) of the heavens and the earth and everything within. And He is Most Capable of everything.”[1]

In this article, we are discussing sovereignty as a political concept, which is related to temporal life and looking after people’s affairs i.e. politics.

Sovereignty is defined as the supreme authority in a state, and is “derived from the Latin superanus through the French souveraineté, the term was originally understood to mean the equivalent of supreme power.”[2]

“In any state sovereignty is vested in the institution, person, or body having the ultimate authority to impose law on everyone else in the state and the power to alter any pre-existing law. How and by whom the authority is exercised varies according to the political nature of the state…In many countries the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of sovereignty are exercised by different bodies. One of these bodies may in fact retain sovereignty by having ultimate control over the others. But in some countries, such as the USA, the powers are carefully balanced by a constitution. In the UK sovereignty is vested in Parliament.”[3]

Hashim Kamali says, “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Almighty God alone. He is the absolute arbiter of values and it is His will that determines good and evil, right and wrong. It is neither the will of the ruler nor of any assembly of men, not even the community as a whole, which determines the values and the laws which uphold those values. In its capacity as the vicegerent of God, the Muslim community is entrusted with the authority to implement the Shari’ah, to administer justice and to take all necessary measures in the interest of good government. The sovereignty of the people, if the use of the word ‘sovereignty’ is at all appropriate, is a delegated, or executive sovereignty (sultan tanfidhi) only.”[4]

What is sharia?

Islam is not a religion like Christianity which, “Renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”[5]. There is no separation between religion and politics in Islam. All spheres of life, state and society are governed by Allah’s guidance in the form of the sharia (شَرِيعَة).

Sharia comprises of all the rules (ahkam) derived from the legislative sources of Islam. These rules are not just limited to areas covering beliefs and morals, but rather the Islamic rules cover every action performed by an individual or state. Allah ta’ala says:

فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِن شَيْءٍ

“Nothing have We omitted from the book”[6]

Iyad Hilal says, “The linguistic meaning of the word Sharia is a non-exhaustive source of water with which people satisfy their thirst. Thus, the linguistic significance of Sharia is that the Islamic laws are effectively a source of guidance. As water is the fundamental basis of life, the Islamic laws are an essential source for guiding human life.

Sharia is composed of all the laws derived from the legislative sources of Islam. These laws are not just limited to areas covering marriage or divorce; rather, the Islamic laws cover every action performed by an individual or a society. The term Sharia is also a synonym for Fiqh.”[7]

Hakimiyyah or siyadah: which term is best?

Two words are used for executive sovereignty, hakimiyyah (حاكِمِيَّة) and siyadah (سِيادَة). Both terms are new technical definitions (istilaahaat) introduced by scholars in to the Arabic language in order to make it easier for understanding particular topics.[8]

Mohammad Al-Mass’ari says, “This reality is sometimes expressed by the wording “Tawhid Al-Hakimiyah”, meaning that the right of the Hukm (ruling) and Tashree’ (legislating) belongs to Allah ta’ala singularly and alone without partner. It is possible to also express it by the principle of “Siyadat ush-Sharia” (Sovereignty of the Islamic legislation) meaning that the Sharia revealed from Allah ta’ala holds absolute sovereignty and the supreme control over all behaviours (and acts) of the ‘Ibaad (slaves i.e. humans).

This second expression “Siyadat ush-Sharia” (Sovereignty of the Islamic legislation) is better from the practical aspect because it explains the “practical manner of how” to accomplish this category of Tawhid, which is: To refer to the Wahi (divine revelation) i.e. the revealed Sharia, represented in the Kitab and the Sunnah and what they guide to in terms of affiliated detailed branched evidences, such as Ijma’ (consensus) and Qiyas (analogy) based upon a Sharia ‘illah (legal reason عِلَّة) i.e. an ‘illah mentioned within the text or deducted from the texts.”[9]

In addition, for some ‘ulema (scholars العُلَماء), hakimiyyah has become a controversial term nowadays due to its link to takfiri groups, who perform takfir (declaring Muslims as disbelievers) on any state or person where the sharia is not sovereign.[10]

This is why this article uses the term siyadah to refer to sovereignty, and not hakimiyyah.

Sovereignty is to the sharia

The foundations (usul) of an Islamic State are ‘sovereignty is to the sharia’ (سيادة للشرع) and ‘authority is with the ummah’ (سلطان للأمة).

Mohammad Al-Mass’ari says, “Authority is with the ummah” «سلطان للأمة» is the second pillar (rukn)[11] of the ruling system in Islam, after “sovereignty is to the Sharia,” «سيادة للشرع» which is the first pillar. Therefore, the ruler’s responsibility to respect the authority of the ummah comes second after his responsibility to rule according to what Allah has revealed…”[12]

Fred Donner says, “In any case there can be no doubt that, from the very beginning, the Islamic state not only had a clearly identified sovereign (whatever he was called), but also seems to have had a clear concept of sovereignty which articulated the idea that the state should establish a properly righteous public order under the direction of the Believers, guided especially by the Qur’an, and that expansion of the state into new areas was a legitimate—indeed, an obligatory—endeavour. (However, it should be noted that this is not the same as demanding that everyone embrace the new faith.)”[13]

It is upon these usul that the distinct shape, structure and systems of the Islamic State are built, making it a unique form of government unlike any other ruling system in existence.

Having said this, the Islamic ruling system will inevitably share characteristics with other forms of government, since the top-level institutions such as having a ruler, judiciary, military, police, executive departments and so forth are the same for all ruling systems. What distinguishes them is the underlying ideology and foundations upon which the state is built, which in the case of an Islamic State is the sharia. Ann Lambton says, “The basis of the Islamic state was ideological, not political, territorial or ethnical and the primary purpose of government was to defend and protect the faith, not the state.”[14]

Sayyid Qutb says, “It may happen, in the development of human systems, that they coincide with Islam at times and diverge from it at others. Islam, however, is a complete and independent system and has no connection with these systems, neither when they coincide with it nor when they diverge from it. For such divergence and coincidence are purely accidental and in scattered parts. Similarity or dissimilarity in partial and accidental matters is also of no consequence. What matters is the basic view, the specific concept from which the parts branch out. Such parts may coincide with or diverge from the parts of other systems but after each coincidence or divergence Islam continues on its own unique direction.”[15]

Wael Hallaq summarises this foundational principle, “In sum, the supremacy of the Sharīʿa meant a rule of law that stood superior to its modern counterpart, the present form of the Western state that has come to be fused, in the majority of instances, with a claim to democratic legitimacy (or popular sovereignty) that “sits very awkwardly with its practical realities.”

For Muslims today to seek the adoption of the modern state system of separation of powers is to bargain for a deal inferior to the one they secured for themselves over the centuries of their history. The modern deal represents the power and sovereignty of the state, which we have seen—and will continue to see in the following chapters—to be working for its own perpetuation and interests. By contrast, the Sharīʿa did not—because it was not designed to—serve the ruler or any form of political power. It served the people, the masses, the poor, the downtrodden, and the wayfarer without disadvantaging the merchant and others of his ilk. In this sense it was not only deeply democratic but humane in ways unrecognizable to the modern state and its law. If the test is “what ought to constitute inalienable rights beyond the reach of any government,” to borrow Robert Dahl’s words, then the Sharīʿa passed that test, privileging the rule of law over that of the state.”[16]

Sovereignty and Authority are twins

Imam Ghazali says “religion and authority are twins” (الدين والسلطان توأمان ad-deen was-sultan tawaman).[17] This is because you cannot have one without the other. Sovereignty needs the people in authority to enforce it, and those people outside government to ensure its enforced. Authority must be with the people to ensure the sharia remains supreme and that the government, laws and values of society are Islamic, which is the reason for the existence of an Islamic State in the first place. Imam Ghazali says “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]

Ka’b al-Ahbar said, “Islam, the ruler, and the people are like a tent, a pole, and pegs. The tent is Islam, the pole is the ruler, and the pegs are the people. Each is useful only with the others.”[19]

While sovereignty and authority are twins, ultimately it’s the sharia (sovereignty) which underpins the nature and limits of authority within an Islamic state. Al-Mawardi says, “It is the Law however, which has delegated affairs to those who wield authority over them in matters of the deen- Allah, may He be exalted, has said: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ‘O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you’[20]. Thus, He has imposed on us obedience to those in authority, that is those who have the command over us.”[21]

In other words, the sharia is sovereign in an Islamic State, and not the people. This contrasts sharply with democracy, where in the social-contract theory the people are sovereign. Although in practice, only a tiny subset of the people is actually sovereign. This ‘elected oligarchy’ and unelected ‘deep state’ are the ones who actually wield any real power.

Although the ummah is not sovereign in the sense they are not law-givers, the sharia has given them the authority (sultah) to elect the caliph and hold him and his government accountable i.e. to ensure sovereignty remains with the sharia. This is important because without some mechanism to enforce sovereignty, and to ensure the constitution is adhered to, the state will become an Islamic state in name only. We can see this today, where the constitutions of some Muslim countries are not worth the paper they are written on.

Is sovereignty to Allah?

As mentioned above, we are discussing sovereignty as a political concept, or as Hashim Kamali calls it “executive sovereignty”, and not Allah’s sovereignty (مُلْك) over man, life and the universe. Although we said that executive sovereignty is to the sharia, this is not the same as saying executive sovereignty is to Allah, because the Islamic State is not a theocracy.

Some groups of Muslims, however did say this, most notably the Khawarij who interpreted the Qur’anic verse, إِنِ ٱلْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ “the hukm [rule/judgment] is for none but Allah”[22] to mean that executive sovereignty is to Allah.

Dr Ovamir Anjum comments on this, “early Islamic thought seems aware of the rational aspect of the job of ruling; it was not, in other words, assumed to be “God’s rule.” The issue of human agency was posed quite starkly by the Khariji militants who asserted that “the hukm [rule/judgment] is for none but Allah” – an assertion based on a qur’anic verse that some of them took to mean that no human agency was therefore needed.

ʿAli responded: ‘The rule is for Allah, indeed, but on earth there are rulers. People cannot do without an Amir – be he [in his person] pious or impious – who gathers the scattered affairs and unites them, distributes the revenues, fights the enemy…so that the pious may be at peace and saved from the impious.’”[23]

Hashim Kamali says, “In the Islamic State absolute sovereignty belongs to God Almighty who alone has the prerogative to determine the moral, legal and religious values that the Muslim community must uphold. These values and principles are expounded by the shari’ah the divine law of Islam, which is the expression of the sovereign will and command of God. Time and again the Qur’an reiterates that absolute sovereignty belongs to God, that He alone has the prerogative of command, that He is all-knowing and all powerful. Knowledge of good and evil, of fair and unfair, and of rights and obligations to which the Muslim community must subscribe and aspire are all determined, not by reference to the nature of things, nor by the dictate of human reason, but by the will and command of God. God is the supreme legislator and the ultimate source of all legal and political authority in the Muslim society. But since divine revelation has come to an end with the demise of the Prophet (peace be on him), the sovereign will of God can only be ascertained and understood by reference to the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah. This has led the ‘ulama’ to the conclusion that right and wrong in an Islamic society are determined by reference to the shari’ah, and that sovereignty for all intents and purposes, therefore, belongs to the shari’ah.

Essentially this principle mitigates against the possibility of human dictatorship, despotism and autocracy. It also implies that legislative and political power in the Islamic state is largely administrative in character designed to implement the shari’ah and to administer justice in accordance with its ordinances. Notwithstanding a measure of legislative authority vested in the state for the realization of public interest (maslaha), no individual or institution, including the state and the community as a whole has the prerogative to make law as a matter of right. The sole criterion for the validity or otherwise of legislation in the Islamic state is whether or not it upholds the values and principles that are enunciated in the shari’ah. Since no one has the authority to change what God has decreed, it is not within the powers of the Islamic state nor even of the ummah as a whole to overrule and replace the shariah, or to depart from its explicit commands.”[24]

While the difference between saying “sovereignty is to the sharia” and “sovereignty is to Allah” may be subtle, this distinction is important because the Islamic State is not a theocracy. It is a state run by fallible human beings, who are not above the law and who are prone to make mistakes. The sharia being sovereign provides a roadmap for not just forming and running an Islamic government, but also outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Muslim ummah and their elected representatives (ahlul hali wal-‘aqd) who sit in the Majlis, holding the government including the caliph to account.

Yusuf Qaradawi says, “The Islamic state which Islam brought, and as is known in the history of the Muslims, is a civil state (dawlah madanyah); political power is set up in it on the basis of the pledge of allegiance (al-bayah) and choice (al-ikhtiyar) and al-shura (consultation), and the ruler in it is the agent (wakil) of the ummah or its employee (ajr). It is the right of the ummah– represented in the people of authority (ahl al-hal wa al-‘aqd) among them– to take him to account; to supervise or censure him; to command him and prohibit him; and to rectify his course if he deviates, and if not– to remove him. It is among the rights of every Muslim, rather of every national citizen (muawin), to disavow him if he sees him sinning and engaging in reprehensible actions, or failing to enjoin what is just. Rather, it is incumbent on the people to declare revolution (al-thawrah) against him if they see that he is a kafir according to the criteria of Allah. As for the religious ‘theocratic’ state which the West knew in the Middle Ages, and which was ruled by the men of religion who retained their rule by the necks– and conscience– of people in the name of the ‘divine right’…it is rejected by Islam.”[25]

Is the caliph sovereign?

The caliph in origin, has all executive power invested in him, similar to the US President. Article II of the US constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This doesn’t make the caliph an absolute monarch or dictator, in the same way it doesn’t make the US president an absolute monarch or dictator, because both posts are restricted by other branches of government namely the legislative branch which is ultimately sovereign.

In an Islamic state the legislative branch is the sharia, which binds the caliph, limits his powers and prevents him from overstepping the law. This is primarily achieved through binding the caliph to a constitution when he is given the bay’a on taking office. This is continuously enforced through institutional mechanisms such as the Supreme Court, Majlis al-Nuwaab (House of Representatives) and the Dar al-‘Adl (House of Justice) fulfilling the function of an upper house.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

لا تُحْرِجُوا أُمَّتِي ثَلاثَ مَرَّاتٍ ، اللَّهُمَّ مَنْ أَمَرَ أُمَّتِي بِمَا لَمْ تَأْمُرْهُمْ بِهِ ، أَوْ آمُرْهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ مِنْهُ فِي حِلٍّ

“Do not oppress or bring difficulty upon my Ummah (he repeated that three times). O Allah, whoever commands my Ummah with that which they have not been commanded with, then they are absolved from him.”[26][27]

Mohammad Al-Mass’ari comments on this hadith,“It is therefore not permissible for the ruler to impose upon the Ummah a law which has not been deduced by a correct Shar’i deduction, let alone a law that is from man’s production. Similarly, it is prohibited upon the Ummah to obey him in that. This is in addition to other restrictions and conditions related to the obedience to the ruler which have been detailed in our book “The obedience to the Uli l-Amr (rulers): Its limits and restrictions”.

All of this clearly indicates that the siyadah (sovereignty) belongs to the shar’a. Otherwise, it would have been permissible for the ruler to impose laws from other than the Shar’a and compel the Ummah to obey him, due to the generality of the evidences mentioning the obligation of obedience. However, Islam prohibited Muslims to obey the ruler if he commanded them with a ma’siyah (sin), or what is worse than that, in the case where he was to make the Halal Haram, and the Haram Halal. It has been established and indeed by Tawatur (concurrent reports) establishing decisive definite knowledge, in respect to the Muslim and disbeliever, equally, that he ﷺ said:

‏ لاَ طَاعَةَ فِي مَعْصِيَةٍ، إِنَّمَا الطَّاعَةُ فِي الْمَعْرُوفِ

“There is no obedience to anyone if it is disobedience to Allah. Verily, obedience is only in good conduct.”[28]

This separation of powers in Islam was also recognized by orientalists and modern academics who have studied Islamic history.

C.A. Nallino (d.1938) an Italian orientalist and Professor of The History and Institutions of Islam, at The Royal University of Rome in 1919, wrote “While these universal Monarchs [caliphs] of Islam possessed, like any other Mussulman [Muslim] sovereign, limitless executive and judicial powers, they were destitute of legislative powers; legislation in the proper sense of the word could be nothing less than the divine law itself, the sceria [sharia], of which the only interpreters are the ulama or doctors.”[29]

Another orientalist Thomas Arnold (d.1930) a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at SOAS in London wrote: “The law being thus of divine origin demanded the obedience even of the Caliph himself, and theoretically at least the administration of the state was supposed to be brought into harmony with the dictates of the sacred law. It is true that by theory the Caliph could be a mujtahid, that is an authority on law, but the legal decisions of a mujtahid are limited to interpretation of the law in its application to such particular problems as may from time to time arise, and he is thus in no sense a creator of new legislation.”[30]

Wael Hallaq says, “The ruler himself was also expected to observe not only his own code but, more importantly, the law of the Sharīʿa. As a private person, he remained, like any common Sharīʿa subject, liable to any civil claim, including debts, contracts, and pecuniary damages. Likewise, he was punishable for infractions of the Sharʿī penal laws and Qurʾānic ḥudūd —the reasoning in all these domains being grounded in the assumption that all Muslims, weak or strong, are equal in their rights to life and property and in their obligations toward one another. In the Sharīʿa, the sultan and his men enjoyed no special immunity.”[31]

Does the title “caliph” imply sovereignty?

The title caliph (khaleefah خليفة) literally means successor or deputy, but who is the caliph a successor or deputy to? Is he a deputy to Allah or the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ? In what capacity is he a deputy, because on the surface this seems to imply some type of divine right as was espoused by the Christian kings of medieval Europe?

Caliph of the Messenger ﷺ

This first caliph in Islam is Abu Bakr as-Siddiq who took the title caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ (خليفة رسول الله) or simply caliph (خليفة). Al-Mawardi says, “He is called the khaleefah (successor) as he stands in for the Messenger of Allah at the head of his Ummah and so it is permitted for someone to say, ‘Oh, Khaleefah of the Messenger of Allah!’ or for someone to say, ‘Khaleefah,’ on its own.”[32]

Ibn Khaldun says, “We have explained the real meaning of the (khilafah). It is a substitute for Muḥammad inasmuch as it serves, like him, to preserve the religion and to exercise (political) leadership of the world. (The institution) is called ‘the khilafah’ or ‘the imamate’. The person in charge of it is called ‘the khaleefah’ or ‘the imam’.”[33]

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was a ruler-prophet like Dawud and Sulayman (peace be upon them) before him. Prophethood has now ended, but ruling by the law (sharia) that the Prophet ﷺ brought continues. He ﷺ said,

كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمُ الأَنْبِيَاءُ كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ وَإِنَّهُ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي وَسَتَكُونُ خُلَفَاءُ فَتَكْثُرُ ‏‏قَالُوا فَمَا تَأْمُرُنَا قَالَ فُوا بِبَيْعَةِ الأَوَّلِ فَالأَوَّلِ وَأَعْطُوهُمْ حَقَّهُمْ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ سَائِلُهُمْ عَمَّا اسْتَرْعَاهُمْ

“The prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafaa’ and they will number many.” They asked, “What then do you order us?” He said, “Fulfil the bay’a to them, one after the other, and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”[34]

Therefore, the caliphs are successors to the Prophet ﷺ in ruling only and not prophethood, i.e. the caliph is not sovereign.

Ibn Khaldun says, “Political laws consider only worldly interests. On the other hand, the intention the Lawgiver has concerning mankind is their welfare in the other world. Therefore, it is necessary, as required by the religious law, to cause the masses to act in accordance with the religious laws in all their affairs touching both this world and the other world. The authority to do so was possessed by the representatives of the religious law, the prophets; then by those who took their place, the caliphs.”[35]

Caliph of Allah

During the Umayyad period some of the caliphs took the title caliph of Allah (خليفة الله) instead of caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. This continued during the Abbasid and Ottoman periods. Two modern orientalists Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds focused much attention on this title and wrote an entire book called ‘God’s Caliph’, implying that the ‘divine right of kings’ which existed in Europe under Christianity also applied to the early caliphate, with the caliphate being a theocracy, and the caliph a legislator i.e. sovereign. They say, “In short, the ultimate source of caliphal law was divine inspiration: being the deputy of God on earth. the caliph was deemed to dispense the guidance of God Himself.”[36]

While the title “Caliph of Allah” was controversial in some circles[37], the use of the title never implied divinity or that the caliph was sovereign. It simply meant that the caliph as head of the Islamic State would implement the law of sharia and look after the affairs of people according to this law. Ibn Khaldun says, “Allah made the caliph his substitute to handle the affairs of His servants. He is to make them do the things that are good for them and forbid them to do those that are harmful.”[38]

This is based on the famous verse of the Holy Qur’an where Allah ta’ala says,

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ إِنِّى جَاعِلٌۭ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةًۭ ۖ قَالُوٓا۟ أَتَجْعَلُ فِيهَا مَن يُفْسِدُ فِيهَا وَيَسْفِكُ ٱلدِّمَآءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِكَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَكَ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّىٓ أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

When your Lord said to the angels, ‘I am putting a caliph on the earth,’ they said, ‘Why put on it one who will cause corruption on it and shed blood when we glorify You with praise and proclaim Your purity?’ He said, ‘I know what you do not know.’[39]

Sayyid Qutb comments on this verse, “Allah, in His infinite wisdom, decided to hand over the earth’s affairs and destiny to man and give him a free hand to use, develop and transform all its energies and resources for the fulfilment of Allah’s will and purpose in creation, and to carry out the pre-eminent mission with which he was charged. It may be assumed, then, that man has been given the capability to take on that responsibility, and the necessary latent skills and energies to fulfil Allah’s purpose on earth. It may, therefore, be concluded that a perfect harmony exists between those laws that govern the earth and the universe, and those governing man’s powers and abilities. The aim of this harmony is to eliminate and avoid conflict and collision, and to save man’s energies from being overwhelmed by the formidable forces of nature.”[40]

Al-Qurtubi says, “This āyah is sound evidence for having a leader and a caliph who is obeyed so that he will be a focus for the cohesion of society and the rulings of the caliphate will carried out.”[41] He also says, “Khalīfah (caliph) has the form of an active participle (fa’il), meaning ‘the one who replaced the angels before him on the earth’, or other than the angels, according to what has been reported. It is also possible that it is in the passive mode (maf’ul), in which case it means someone who is sent as a representative.”[42]

Is the ummah sovereign?

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.”^[43]

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.”[44]

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.”[45]

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.”[46]

Islam also defines a ruling contract called the bay’a 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’a is their citizenship contract with its ruler – the caliph.

The bay’a 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’a 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’a was always present and legally convened, albeit misapplied for much of Islamic history.

While on the surface, the bay’a contract seems similar to the social contract, they are in fact worlds apart, as Ulrika Martensson has mentioned[47]. 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 as discussed previously.

To elaborate further on this point, we need to understand what the purpose of government is in Islam compared to that of the west.

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.”[48]

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-19^th 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.”[49] 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.”[50]

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.[51] 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.”[52]

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.”[53]

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.”[54]

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.”[55]

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.”[56]

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.[57]…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.”[58]

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.”[59]

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.”[60]

An Islamic government is a trust given to it by the ummah through the bay’a. 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.”[61]

Is the caliph a wakil (representative) of the ummah?

The caliph cannot take office without the bay’a 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’a 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.”[62]

Abdul-Qadeem Zallum comments on such a scenario, “the Ummah does not give the bay’a 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’a 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.”[63]

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.”[64]

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.”[65]

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’a 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.”[66]

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 pro-western “un-Islamic” regimes. The Middle East saw numerous coups and counter-coups throughout the 20^th 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 (ra), 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.”[67]

These anti-government demonstrations were an organized campaign instigated primarily by Abdullah ibn Sab’a[68] 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 Khaleefah) someday and the hypocrites want to rid you of the garment with which Allah has clothed you (i.e., the position of Khaleefah), 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.’”[69]

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.”[70]

Even though Al-Walid II had provided lavishly for many of the influential tribes, his violation of the sharia was a red-line that can never be crossed.

The caliph will from time to time 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.”[71]

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[72], which encompasses all seven contractual conditions of the bay’a. This again reiterates the point that the sharia and not the ummah is sovereign.

How to get sovereignty back to the Muslim world

So far, we have dealt with sovereignty as the foundation of the laws, systems and values in an Islamic State, which some refer to as ‘legal and political sovereignty’.[73] There are however, two additional aspects of sovereignty which need to be discussed. These are internal and external sovereignty which relate to power, capability and territorial control. This sovereignty is more in line with the Arabic word dominion (mulk مُلْك) than siyadah. These two concepts are fundamental in characterizing a state as a land of Islam (Dar ul-Islam دار الإِسْلام) or not.

What is Dar ul-Islam?

Dar ul-Islam is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam, and whose security (amaan أَمان) and protection (man’ah مَنْعَة) is maintained by Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims, as we saw during the Ottoman rule of Eastern Europe. This means internally the government must be implementing Islam, and have full control of its territories i.e. not occupied by foreign forces. Externally, the state should have unrestricted power – within its capability and the international situation – to pursue foreign policy objectives in line with Islam, such as the protection of Muslims and the promotion of Islamic interests.

Muhammad Said Al-Bouti says,

تلتقي كلمة أئمة المذاهب الأربعة على ان البلدة تصبح دار إسلام إذا دخلت في منعة المسلمين وسيادتهم، بحيث يقدرون على إظهار إسلامهم، والامتناع من أعدائهم. فإذا تحققت فيها هذه الصفة بسبب الفتح عنوة أو صلحا أو نحو ذلك. اصبحت دار إسلام، وسرت عليها أحكامها من وجوب الدفاع عنها والقتال دونها، والهجرة إليها، ثم إن هذه الهوية لا تنفك عنها، وإن استولى الأعداء بعد ذلك عليها، فيجيء على المسلمين بذل كل ما يملكونه من جهد للذود عنها وطرد الاعداء منها. وإقامة أحكام الله فيها

“The opinion of the Imams of the four schools of thought agree that a land (dar) becomes a land of Islam (dar al-Islam) if it enters under the protection (man’ah) and sovereignty (siyadah) of the Muslims, such that they are able to show their Islam and resist their enemies. If this characteristic is achieved in it due to conquest by force or peace or something similar, it becomes dar al-Islam, and its rulings apply to it, such as the obligation to defend it, fight for it, and migrate to it.

This identity cannot be separated from it, even if the enemies take control of it after that, so it is up to the Muslims to exert all the effort they possess to defend it and expel the enemies from it, and establish the rulings of Allah in it.”[74]

Internal sovereignty

For the bay’a contract to be considered legally convened (sahih صَحِيح)[75], the caliph needs to have full executive control over all the territories of the state. This is because the caliph’s executive power and authority is a condition (shart شَرْط) of the bay’a. If this power is limited without his choice i.e. not due to legitimate delegation of his powers[76] to ministers and governors, then the bay’a becomes defective (fasid فاسِد)[77].

If there is a fragmented state with warlords in control of different parts of the country, then there is no internal sovereignty, and until this situation is rectified there can be no Dar ul-Islam. Sudan, Syria and Libya are contemporary examples of this.

In the 10^th century, during the later part of the Abbasid caliphate, the caliph lost most of his executive powers to Amirs and Sultans who paid nominal homage to the caliph in Baghdad. Eric Hanne says, “The death of al-Muqtadi in 487/1094 marked the final pivotal event in this tumultuous period. The central Islamic lands would never be the same as various alliances and rebellions helped divide the region into smaller and smaller areas of influence.”[78] Ibn Khaldun says, “From the time of an-Nâṣir (r. 1180-1225) on, the caliphs were in control of an area smaller than the ring around the moon.”[79] Ibn Khaldun also says, “They (the non-Arab rulers in the East) showed obedience to the caliph in order to enjoy the blessings (involved in that), but royal authority (asabiyah) belonged to them with all its titles and attributes. The caliph had no share in it.”[80]

Al-Radhi (r.934-940CE) was the last independent Abbasid caliph since the rise of the Buwahids (Buyids) in 934CE, and the establishment of their emirate over Iraq, and central and southern Iran, which reduced the caliph’s executive power to the Dar ul-Khilafah which was a section of Baghdad that housed the Caliphal palace. Al-Khatib (d. 463H,1071CE) mentions that Al-Radhi was “the last of the Caliphs who undertook the sole direction of the army and the finances.”[81] After Al-Radhi, his brother Al-Muttaqi (r.940-944) assumed the rule after him and Al-Suyuti says about him that “He had nothing of authority but the name.”[82]

While attempts were made by subsequent caliphs to claw back power from the Buyids and later the Seljuks, this split between the caliph and the sultan, who Al-Mawardi refers to as the wazir ul-tafweedh وَزِير التَفْوِيض (delegated assistant)[83] continued until 1517CE when the Ottoman Sultan Selim I merged the offices of Sultanate and Caliphate, bringing the caliph back with full executive power. Ibn Khaldun says, “At that time, the wazirate was divided into an ‘executive wazirate’ this happened when the ruler was in control of his affairs and the wazir executed his decisions — and a ‘delegated wazirate’ — which happened when the wazir controlled the ruler and the caliph delegated all the affairs of the caliphate, leaving them to his supervision and independent judgment.”[84]

The caliph must remain in overall control of the state

The caliph in origin has all executive power invested in him, but at the same time he also devolves many of his powers to ministers, army commanders and governors of the provinces. This is required because the caliph cannot possibly run the state on his own, especially not a state which once re-united, will control a vast number of countries ruling over hundreds of millions of people.

This delegation of powers however must be balanced. Over-delegation will lead to a nominal caliph and semi-independent governors (sultans) as described above. Over-centralisation by limiting a governor’s powers so much so that he cannot effectively rule, will also lead to major problems and potential fitna and dissent from the local population.

At the beginning of the Abbasid Caliphate, governors were appointed with a specific mandate without control of the armed forces, judiciary and treasury. The caliph would appoint a separate qadi for the judiciary, a saihib al-shurtah for the army and a sahib al-kharaj for the treasury. While the governor was almost always an outsider with no ties to the province, the other posts of qadi, saihib al-shurtah and sahib al-kharaj were appointed from the local elites (wujuh) with grass roots support from the people.

Hugh Kennedy highlights this point, “Sometimes the governor himself was directly responsible for the financial administration of the province but from late Umayyad times, a separate sahib al-kharaj was appointed by the caliph, answerable directly to him. On occasion the sahib al-kharaj could be a more powerful figure in the province than the governor.”[85]

“In many ways the saihib al-shurtah must often have been a more important figure in the life of the province than the governor to whom he was theoretically subordinate. In contrast to the governors, the police chiefs were usually men who had roots in the province and had strong family connections there.”[86]

Al-Mawardi lists ten duties of the caliph, the last of which is “He must personally take over the surveillance of affairs and the scrutiny of circumstances such that he may execute the policy of the Ummah and defend the nation without over-reliance on delegation of authority.”[87]

This is because the bay’a contract is between the ummah and the caliph, not between the ummah and the caliph’s delegates. Freedom (al-hurriyah الحُرِّيَّة) in origin is a pillar (rukn) of the bay’a, so the caliph cannot be a slave or a prisoner. If the caliph is captured by an enemy, with no immediate hope of release, then the bay’a becomes void (batil باطِل) and a new caliph needs to be appointed. Having said this, Al-Mawardi did justify the authority that the Buyids and later Seljuks had over the caliph. He did this in order to maintain a semblance of unity, and the continued implementation of the sharia and the post of caliph, which the Buyids had the full power to abolish. Al-Mawardi says in relation to the validity of the Imam’s (Caliph) bay’a, “Control” (حَجْرٌ) here describes the situation when someone from his retinue gains authority over him and rules autocratically over affairs without appearing to commit any act of disobedience and without any manifest sign of opposition. It does not exclude him from Imamate and it does not impair the validity of his governance, but the actions of the person who has taken over his affairs should be investigated: if they are in accordance with the judgements of the deen and according to the requirements of justice, he may be allowed to remain in order that the Imamate may continue to function and its rulings be executed, lest the affairs of the deen be interrupted and the Ummah is corrupted. If however, his actions are outside the rule of the deen and the requirements of justice, he may not tolerate his actions and he must seek the help of another in order to overcome him and put an end to his dominance.”[88]

Devolution not Federalism

The caliphate is not a federal state where power is shared between states and the central (federal) government. In such a model, provinces have a constitutional right to disobey the central government, and execute their own policies and laws in certain (non-federal) areas.

The caliphate is a unitary system comprised of Wiliyat or Emirates (provinces), but with overall executive authority remaining with the central government. Powers are devolved to the wiliyat by appointing a Wali ‘Amm (governor with general powers). Since these powers are devolved, they can be revoked at any time without the need for a constitutional amendment. They can also be overridden if the maslaha (interests) of the people require it. A Wali ‘Khass (governor with restricted powers) can also be appointed where the central government retains control of some aspects of the province such as the armed forces. Britain is a unitary form of government. While it has devolved power to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, it retains full control of the armed forces and some fiscal and legal powers as well.

No Occupation and foreign influence

If the state is under occupation of a foreign power, then there can be no internal sovereignty until the occupiers are removed. This was the case with Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the departure of US-led forces. It was also the case for much of the Muslim world during the 18^th and 19^th centuries where the main colonial powers – Britain and France – carved up Africa and the Middle East between them. Even after ‘independence’ they left in place institutions and ruling families that would remain loyal to them, long after their troops had left.

If the state is not overtly occupied by foreign powers, but is subjected to the policies and loans of international organisations such as the UN, IMF and World Bank, then internal sovereignty is compromised. Any emerging Islamic state must work to rid itself of the stranglehold of such organisations, which act on behalf of the western powers, primarily America.

Israel openly and brazenly violates international law, UN resolutions and all basic standards of humanity, committing an open genocide, yet is not subject to any sanctions or even condemnation by the main western powers. As US Secretary of State Blinken said, “Look, when it comes to Israel, we don’t talk about red lines.”[89] Compare this to when Iraq crossed the British imposed border[90] and in to Kuwait in 1990. The whole world descended upon Iraq and bombed it back to the stone age, with the full approval and sanction of the UN under Resolution 687.

External sovereignty

The caliphate is not an isolationist state. It will deal with other countries based upon a strict criteria set by the sharia which allows friendly relations, trade and multilateral treaties with other nations based upon cooperation and justice.

This can be seen throughout Islamic history where the high values of the Islamic state gained international respect, and whose armies had a reputation for the rule of law at the height of war. The currency of the caliphate spread globally just a few decades after it was first minted by the Umayyad caliph Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan (r.692-705CE). A copy of a gold dinar minted by the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur (r. 745-775CE) even found its way to England during the reign of King Offa of Mercia (r. 757–796CE).[91]

The sharia however, prohibits relations with those countries who are actively at war with Muslims like Israel, and limits relations with countries who have a history of occupation and interference in the Muslim world like America, Britain and France.

The Hilf al-Fudul is a model for international cooperation

The Hilf al-Fudul (حلف الفضول) which means ‘Alliance of Excellence’ was instituted by the Quraish in Makkah before the advent of Islam. Ibn Hisham describes this pact, “They (Quraish) promised and pledged that they would not find any wronged person among their people, or anyone else who entered Mecca, but that they would support him. They would stand against whoever oppressed them until the rights of the oppressed were restored.”[92]

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ consented to this multilateral treaty after he received revelation and became a prophet. This means such a treaty or alliance becomes permitted (halal) based upon a sharia daleel (legal evidence) from the sunnah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

لَقَدْ شَهِدْتُ فِي دَارِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ جُدْعَانَ حِلْفًا مَا أُحِبُّ أَنَّ لِيَ بِهِ حُمْرَ النَّعَمِ وَلَوْ أُدْعَى بِهِ فِي الإِسْلامِ لأَجَبْتُ

“I witnessed a pact of justice in the house of Abdullah ibn Jud’an that was more beloved to me than a herd of expensive red camels. If I were called to it now in the time of Islam, I would respond.”[93]

In another narration, the Prophet ﷺ said,

تَحَالَفُوا أَنْ تُرَدَّ الْفُضُولُ عَلَى أَهْلِهَا وَأَلَّا يَعُزَّ ظَالِمٌ مَظْلُومًا

“Make such pacts to restore rights to their owners such that no oppressor has strength over the oppressed.”[94]

Such an alliance (hilf), if established would stand in stark contrast to the colonial international organisations like the UN, IMF and World Bank which subjugate the poorer global south in favour of the rich north.

The Caliphate must maintain an independent foreign policy

Most Muslim countries today are ‘agents’ in one form or another of America and other major powers. Agent here means they align their foreign policy with another more powerful state, in order to receive some crumbs in return. Türkiye is a good example of this. Erdogan makes very eloquent and powerful speeches calling for Muslim unity and Muslim action against Israel over its genocide in Gaza, yet refuses to stop supplying oil to Israel via the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline.

Allah ta’ala forbids these non-Muslim powers from having any sovereignty over the state and its policies. He ta’ala says,

وَلَن يَجْعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لِلْكَـٰفِرِينَ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا

“Allah will never grant the disbelievers a way (sabeel) over the believers.”[95]

Way (sabeel سَبِيلً) is mutlaq (unrestricted), which means any way over the believers is prohibited. This includes authority and sovereignty which is the strongest way disbelieving nations can exert their influence over the ummah.[96]

This independence policy can also be understood from the Prophet’s ﷺ meeting with Banu Shayban bin Tha’laba in the 10^th year of prophethood, when he was ordered to seek support (nusra نُصْرَة) from the Arab tribes external to Makkah in order to establish a state for Islam. During the meeting Banu Shayban mentioned the treaty they had with the Persian Sassanid Empire, which prevented them from supporting anyone who posed a threat to them.

Al-Muthanna who was the sheikh and military leader of Banu Shayban said to the Prophet ﷺ, “We would be reneging on a pact that Kisra (Persian Emperor) has placed upon us to the effect that we would not cause an incident and not give sanctuary to a troublemaker. This policy you suggest for us is such a one that kings would dislike.

As for those areas bordering Arab lands, the blame of those so acting would be forgiven and excuses for them be accepted, but for those areas next to Persia, those so acting would not be forgiven, and no such excuses would be accepted. If you want us to help and protect you from whatever relates to Arab territories alone, we should do so.”

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied, “Your reply is in no way bad, for you have spoken eloquently and truthfully. (But) Allah’s religion can only he engaged in by those who encompass it from all sides.”[97]

Banu Shayban later accepted Islam, and al-Muthanna bin Haritha was appointed by Abu Bakr as the Amir ul-Jihad for the Iraq campaign against the Persians, their former allies.[98]

Military alliances are prohibited

A military alliance is a formal agreement between nations that specifies mutual obligations regarding national security. In the event a nation is attacked, members of the alliance are often obligated to come to their defense regardless if attacked directly. Military alliances can be classified into defense pacts, non-aggression pacts, and ententes. Alliances may be covert (as was common from 1870 to 1916) or public.[99]

These types of alliances are prohibited for the state, because the caliphate must remain militarily independent, and not reliant on technology and weapons from other countries. The pagers which exploded in Lebanon are a good example of the dangers of sourcing western made technology, even for civilian purposes, because they can be weaponised by the enemies of Islam to wreak havoc on the state. The evidence for the prohibition of such alliances is from the sunnah where the Prophet ﷺ said,

لا تستضيئوا بنار المشركين

“Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists.”[100]

The word fire (naar نار) mentioned in the hadith could be a metaphor for “Al-Harb” (war) just as it could be a metaphor for a military alliance. Allah ta’ala says,

كُلَّمَآ أَوْقَدُوا۟ نَارًۭا لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا ٱللَّهُ

“Whenever they kindle the fire of war, Allah puts it out.”[101]

This is in relation to the use of the word ‘fire’ as a metaphor for war.

As for ‘fire’ being a metaphor for ‘hilf’ (alliance), then the following was stated by Al-Tha’alibi (d. 1038CE): “Naar ul-Hilf (The fire of the alliance): This is what the Arabs used to alight or kindle in respect to the alliances and so they would not convene their alliance except by it (i.e. the fire) and they would mention by it, its terms and supplicate to Allah against the one who breaks the covenant in that they be deprived of its benefits. They also approach it to the point that it is nearly burning them and exaggerate the affair in respect to it.”[102]

Muhammad Haykal says, “If we were to understand the Shar’i text “Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists,”[103] according to the meaning of ‘Fire of war’, the meaning would then be: ‘Do not request from the army of the disbelievers to protect you from your enemies and adversaries, in defence of you.’

If we were to understand this text according to the meaning of the military alliance, its meaning would be: ‘Do not enter a military alliance with the disbelievers i.e. seek to be protected by it from the enemies and the adversaries.’[104]

Muhammad Haykal summarises the prohibition of military alliances based on this hadith.

“Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists,”[105] indicates the forbiddance of the Muslims from seeking nusrah (support) against their opponents, adversaries and their enemies from the armies of the disbelievers, or to enter into a military alliance with the disbelievers, for the sake or purpose of seeking support and assistance against their adversaries or enemies through that alliance. This is when the Muslims are the weak side and the disbelievers are the strong or powerful side who they turn to for protection.

As for when the Muslims are the strong ones or in the powerful situation and others request their support, or from them to enter under their wing within a military alliance to be protected by the Muslims, then the hadeeth, which we are dealing with, does not address this mas’alah (issue), although the Shar’i Daleel has come for the lawfulness of this issue.”[106]

How do we ensure sovereignty remains with the sharia?

We have discussed that in an Islamic state sovereignty must be to the sharia alone, because sovereignty is one of the foundations (usul) of the state, and without it there is no Islamic ruling system. While this may sound good in theory, unless sovereignty is practically implemented, it will remain an abstract concept with no relevance to a state’s day to day affairs. This is what we witness in many Muslim countries today, who have constitutions which mention that Islam is the religion of the state, and that the sharia is the main source of legislation, yet these constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on. These regimes disregard the principles of Islam and even basic notions of humanity in oppressing their people.

Ibn Khaldun comments on such a situation. “Good rulership is equivalent to mildness. If the ruler uses force and is ready to mete out punishment and eager to expose the faults of people and to count their sins, (his subjects) become fearful and depressed and seek to protect themselves against him through lies, ruses, and deceit. This becomes a character trait of theirs. Their mind and character become corrupted. They often abandon (the ruler) on the battlefield and (fail to support his) defensive enterprises. The decay of (sincere) intentions causes the decay of (military) protection. The subjects often conspire to kill the ruler.”[107]

Pakistan Constitution

In the preamble to the constitution it begins with, “Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.”[108] It then continues, “Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.”[109]

If this is the case then why in a 2023 Gallup Poll did they find that “the percentages of Pakistanis who perceived corruption to be widespread in the country’s government (86%) and businesses (80%) had reached record highs.”[110]

Saudi Constitution

The Saudi constitution is the most explicit with regards sovereignty being with the sharia.

“Article 6: Citizens shall pledge allegiance (bay’a) to the King on the basis of the Book of Allah and the Prophet’s Sunnah, as well as on the principle of ‘hearing is obeying’ both in prosperity and adversity, in situations pleasant and unpleasant.

Article 7: The regime derives its power from the Holy Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunnah which rule over this and all other State Laws.

Article 8: The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is established on the foundation of justice, ‘Shura’ and equality in compliance with the Islamic Shari’ah (the revealed law of Islam).”[111]

Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030, where even the most basic Islamic tenants are disregarded in favour of pop concerts, the reintroduction of idols and normalisation with Israel, is enough evidence that this constitution has no meaning or impact on the state and society.

Egyptian Constitution

Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution states that “Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation.”[112]

If we scroll down to Article 55 on ‘Due Process’ we find this article:

“Every person who is either arrested, detained, or his freedom is restricted shall be treated in a manner that maintains his dignity. He/she may not be tortured, intimidated, coerced, or physically or morally harmed; and may not be seized or detained except in places designated for that purpose, which shall be adequate on human and health levels. The State shall cater for the needs of people with disability.

Violating any of the aforementioned is a crime punished by Law.

An accused has the right to remain silent. Every statement proved to be made by a detainee under any of the foregoing actions, or threat thereof, shall be disregarded and not be relied upon.”[113]

Such an article would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious to the thousands of victims of Egyptian state torture. In 2022 Human Rights Watch (HRW) said, “Egypt’s government has reached a new low around torture.

After the Guardian reported on two leaked videos last January showing detainees in a Cairo police station with wounds that appeared to be the result of torture, Egyptian authorities failed to carry out a credible investigation into the abuse. Instead, Egypt’s Supreme State Security top prosecutor, Khaled Diaa, referred most of the detainees who appeared in the videos to a mass trial.

This is just the latest example of impunity in a country known for endemic torture with a judicial system that looks the other way.”[114]

Authority must be with the Ummah

The only way to ensure sovereignty is with the sharia is by combining sovereignty and authority together as Imam Ghazali said, “religion and authority are twins” (الدين والسلطان توأمان ad-deen was-sultan tawaman).[115] This is because you cannot have one without the other. Sovereignty needs the people in authority to enforce it, and those people outside government to ensure its enforced. Authority must be with the people to ensure the sharia remains supreme and that the government, laws and values of society are Islamic, which is the reason for the existence of an Islamic State in the first place. Imam Ghazali says, “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.”[116]

The practical manifestation of authority will be through an elected Majlis al-Nuwwab (House of Representatives), which institutionalises the classical ahl hali wal-‘aqd (electoral representatives of the Muslims), and embodies the principle of shura (consultation) and muhasabah (accounting). An independent supreme court embodying the principle of addressing government injustices (mazalim), and an upper house (Dar ul-‘Adl) pro-actively investigating government policies to ensure they adhere to the basic tenants of the state, and are in the interests of the people. A multitude of political parties and a free press, will create a healthy atmosphere of debate and accountability within the limits of speech laid down by the sharia. All of this will go some way to ensuring sharia remains sovereign and the state is an Islamic state in practice not name only.

Notes

[1] Holy Qu’ran, Surah Al-Ma’ida ayah 120

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty

[3] Jonathan law, ‘Dictionary of Law,’ Oxford University Press, 2018, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780198802525.001.0001/acref-9780198802525-e-3701?rskey=1KDnJ5&result=7

[4] Hashim Kamali, ‘Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence,’ Islamic Texts Society, 1991, p.7; Cf. Zaydan, al-Fard wa al-Dawlah, p.29

[5] Bible, Matthew 22:21

[6] Holy Qur’an, Surah al-An’am, ayah 38

[7] Abu Tariq Hilal/Abu Ismael al-Beirawi, ‘Understanding Usul Al-Fiqh,’ Revival Publications, 2007, p.10

[8] Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, ‘Al-Waadih Fee Usul ul-Fiqh,’ 1995, First Translated English Edition 2016, p.555

[9] Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Al-Massari, Al-Hakimiyah Wa Siyadah Ash-Shar’i, Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights, First Edition: 1423 H /2002 CE, p.34

[10] Al-Azhar University, https://www.azhar.eg/en/Islam/Misconceptions/details5/ArtMID/12218/ArticleID/53689/Al-Hakimiyyah-means-that-there-is-no-legislator-except-Allah

[11] Scholars have used different istilahi (technical) terms for the foundations of ruling. Usul, arkan and qawa’id are all synonymous in this context

[12] Prof. Dr: Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Masari, ‘Holding rulers accountable’, a translation of Muhasabah Al-Hukkam Third edition, 1423 AH / 2002 CE

[13] Fred Donner, ‘The Articulation of Early Islamic State Structures,’ Routledge, 2012, p.xviii

[14] Ann K. S. Lambton, ‘State and Government in Medieval Islam,’ Routledge Curzon, 1981, p.13

[15] Sayed Khatab, ‘The Power of Sovereignty-The Political and Ideological Philosophy of Sayyid Qutb,’ Routledge, 2006, p.35

[16] Wael B. Hallaq, ‘The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity’s Moral Predicament,’ Columbia University Press, p.72

[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.229

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ‘The Unique Necklace,’ translation of Al-‘Iqd al-Farid, Volume I, ‘The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization,’ Garnet Publishing, 2006, p.6; Arabic original: https://shamela.ws/book/23789/12

[20] Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa, ayah 59

[21] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.10

[22] Holy Qur’an, Surah Yusuf, ayah 40

[23] Ovamir Anjum, ‘Politics, Law, and Community in Islamic Thought – The Taymiyyan Moment,’ Cambridge University Press, 2012, p.58; Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanʿani, al-Musannaf, 10:149

[24] KAMALI, MUHAMMAD HASHIM. “THE LIMITS OF POWER IN AN ISLAMIC STATE.” Islamic Studies 28, no. 4 (1989): 323–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20839967

[25] Abdelilah Belkeziz, ‘The State in Contemporary Islamic Thought: A Historical Survey of the Major Muslim Political Thinkers of the Modern Era,’ Translated for the Centre for Arab Unity Studies by Abdullah Richard Lux, I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2009, p.127

[26] Al-Tabarani, 826, https://hadith.islam-db.com/single-book/480/%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A/0/826

[27] Mohammad Al-Mass’ari, Al-Haakimiyah Wa Siyaadat ush-Shar’i

[28] Muttafaqun Alayhi (agreed upon). Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7257 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7257; Saḥīḥ Muslim 1840 https://sunnah.com/muslim:1840a

[29] C.A. Nallino, ‘Notes on the nature of the caliphate in general and on the alleged Ottoman Caliphate,’ a translation of ‘Appunti sulla natura del Califfato in genere e sul presunto Califfato Otttomano,’ Printed at the press of the foreign office, Rome 1919, p.7

[30] Thomas W. Arnold, ‘The Caliphate,’ p.53

[31] Wael B. Hallaq, Op.cit., p.68

[32] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.27

[33] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.253

[34] Sahih Muslim 1842a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1842a ; sahih Bukhari 3455, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3455

[35] Ibn Khaldun, ‘The Muqaddimah – An Introduction to History,’ Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Classics, p.252

[36] Patricia Crone, Martin Hinds, ‘God’s Caliph: Religious authority in the first centuries of Islam,’ Cambridge University Press, 1986, p.56

[37] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.27

[38] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.258

[39] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqara, ayah 30

[40] Sayyid Qutb, ‘In the Shade of the Qur’an,’ translation of Fi zilal al-Quran, Vol.1, p.50

[41] Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī, translated by Aisha Bewley, Vol.1, p.148

[42] Ibid, https://tafsir.app/qurtubi/2/30

[43] Benjamin Franklin, The Political Thought of Benjamin Franklin. 2003. Edited by Ralph Ketchum; Hackett Publishing, p.398.

[44] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/preamble

[45] https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract

[46] Jean Jacques Rousseau, ‘The Social Contract,’ Translated by G. D. H. Cole, public domain, p.18

[47] Martensson, U. (2017). Social Contract Theory in Islamic Sources?. Comparative Islamic Studies, 10(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1558/cis.32431

[48] Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man [1790] (1996, p. 164).

[49] Alexis De Tocqueville, ‘Democracy in America,’ The University of Chicago Press, 2002, p.506; first published in 1835.

[50] Ibid, p.511

[51] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/aipac-bowman-latimer.html

[52] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address#:~:text=In%20the%20councils%20of%20government,power%20exists%20and%20will%20persist

[53] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/rich-poor-gap-wealth-inequality-bernie-sanders

[54] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Muminun, ayah 71

[55] Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, ‘The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage of Atheism,’ FB Publishing, San Clemente, p.177

[56] Sunan Ibn Majah 4141, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4141

[57] 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

[58] Ibid, p.229

[59] Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley, ‘Democratic Tyranny and the Islamic Paradigm,’ Diwan Press, 1st edition, 2018, Kindle Edition, p.89

[60] Holy Qur’an, Surah at-Tawbah, ayah 72

[61] Sahih Muslim 1825, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1825

[62] Hashim Kamali, ‘Citizenship and Accountability of Government: An Islamic Perspective,’ The Islamic Texts Society, 2011, p.280

[63] Abdul-Qadeem Zallum, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p.44

[64] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.29

[65] Sahih Bukhari 7212, https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7212

[66] Ibid

[67] Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat 1/39-47 quoted in Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ Darussalam, p.447

[68] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Uthman bin Affan,’ Darussalam, p.484

[69] Ibn Majah 112, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:112

[70] 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

[71] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Anfal, ayah 24

[72] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.29

[73] https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-sovereignty-definition-meaning-quiz.html#:~:text=’%20The%20term%20has%20been%20further,jure%20sovereignty%2C%20and%20popular%20sovereignty.

[74] Muhammad Said Al-Bouti, كتاب هكذا فلندع إلى الإسلام ‘This is how we call to Islam book,’ https://shamela.ws/book/1751/21

[75] A sahih contract is one in which the arkaan (pillars) and shuroot (conditions) are correct

[76] Delegation is through the contract of wakala

[77] A fasid contract is one in which a condition does not violate the arkaan of the contract, and this condition can be rectified. For example, a fasid marriage contract (nikah) is one in which the dowry (mahr) was not specified. The amount of the mahr can be specified after the marriage, turning the contract from fasid to sahih.

[78] Eric J. Hanne, ‘Putting the Caliph in His Place: Power, Authority, and the Late Abbasid Caliphate,’ 2007, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, p.130

[79] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.385

[80] Ibid, p.267

[81] Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ‘History of the Caliphs,’ a translation of Tarikh al-Khulufa’ by Major H. S. Jarrett, 1881, p.411

[82] Ibid, p.413

[83] The wazirate, or wizarah وِزارَة is a term that refers to the office of the wazir, a high-ranking government official who served as the chief minister or advisor to the caliph throughout the history of the Islamic State.

[84] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., p.304

[85] Hugh Kennedy, ‘Central Government and Provincial Élites in the Early ‘Abbāsid caliphate,’ http://www.jstor.org/stable/616294 p.33

[86] Ibid, p.35

[87] Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, Op.cit., p.28

[88] Ibid, p.34

[89] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/blinken-says-no-red-lines-for-israel-but-warns-against-rafah-attack/3217678

[90] Uqair Protocol of 1922, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqair_Protocol_of_1922#:~:text=The%20Uqair%20Protocol%20or%20Uqair,under%20Ibn%20Saud%20attacking%20Kuwait.

[91] British Library, https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/gold-dinar-of-king-offa

[92] al-Sīrah al-Nabawīyah 1/133

[93] Source: al-Sunan al-Kubrá 13080. Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Ibn al-Mulaqqin. Reproduced courtesy of https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/08/06/prophet-universal-justice/

[94] Ibid

[95] Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisaa’, ayah 141

[96] There are different interpretations of this ayah but the strongest is what Al-Razi mentions,

هو أنَّهُ عامٌّ في الكُلِّ إلّا ما خَصَّهُ الدَّلِيلُ “It is general in all except what is specified by evidence.” https://tafsir.app/alrazi/4/141

[97] Ibn Kathir, ‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya,’ Vol.2, Garnet Publishing, p.111

[98] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.557

[99] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_alliance

[100] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5209, https://sunnah.com/nasai:5209 Note. There is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of this hadith.

[101] Holy Qur’an Al-Ma’ida, ayah 64

[102] Al-Tha’alibi, “Thimaar ul-Quloob Fil Mudaaf Wa l-Mansoob”, p.577

[103] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5209, https://sunnah.com/nasai:5209 Note. There is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of this hadith.

[104] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ chapter ‘Military Alliances’

[105] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5209, https://sunnah.com/nasai:5209 Note. There is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of this hadith.

[106] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, Op.cit.

[107] Ibn Khaldun, Op.cit., pp.249

[108] The Constitution of Pakistan, Preamble, 12th April, 1973, https://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/preamble.html

[109] Ibid

[110] https://news.gallup.com/poll/505973/corruption-spotlight-pakistan-economy-spirals.aspx

[111] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Saudi_Arabia_2013

[112] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2014

[113] Ibid

[114] https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/10/egypts-response-torture-punish-victims

[115] 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.229

[116] Ibid

[117] Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ‘The Unique Necklace,’ translation of Al-‘Iqd al-Farid, Volume I, ‘The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization,’ Garnet Publishing, 2006, p.6; Arabic original: https://shamela.ws/book/23789/12