3.12 The State

All modern conceptions of state have one thing in common: material benefits have so obsessed the views of the civilized world that God and religion have been relegated to the corner of oblivion and the higher values of life are utterly neglected even in countries which nominally still owe allegiance to Christ and Christianity. The modern states may not be one in their lip professions so far as the supreme authority of God is concerned, but, strangely enough, they are one in worshipping the two new gods which Western civilization has created in place of the One God Whom it has dismissed as a thing of the past. The Nation and the State are the new idols before which the civilized man has fallen prostrate. And along with the old — perhaps the oldest-living — god Mammon, a new Trinity has emerged in place of the Trinity of the Church. The gain of economic advantages or the acquisition of wealth being the sole consideration of the civilized man, he is prepared to make any sacrifice that is required of him to gain this end, in the name of the State and for the love of the Nation. Wealth, Nation and State have thus the highest place of honour in the heart of the civilized man and he worships these idols. The desire to bow is there in human nature, and if men will not bow before their Maker, they must bow before things of their own making. Objects unworthy of worship have, however, always led humanity to ruin, and the worship of Mammon and its two associates, the Nation and the State is even now leading civilization to sure destruction. The State in the West whether it is labelled as a democracy or a Fascist or a Communist state, stands for expansion, aggression and exploiting the weak. It is not Machiavelli alone with whom “consideration of justice or injustice” carries no weight, and with whom “every scruple must be set aside” when the safety of the State is at stake. Even those who condemn him are following in his footsteps. With the gold of the world in their possession and with their bombs and bombers, they claim that they have an additional right of controlling the destinies of others to bring more and more economic advantages to their own people. Aggression in one form or another is the very essence of the civilized state. The weak have no rights; the right belongs only to those who have the might, who have the strength to command respect and attention. This mentality has been developed by Western nations, resulting in states striving to outvie others in armies and armaments. And the result is a deadly conflict of the different states and the desire to destroy one another.

The responsibility for this state of things rests entirely with the materialistic concept of the state. Every state must necessarily be invested with power, with which it may stop aggression and protect the weak, dealing out fair justice to all. The advance of science has increased this power a thousandfold. On the other hand, materialistic outlook on life has made man more unscrupulous in the use of his power against fellow man, and with advancement in the conquest of nature, the conquest of self which alone serves as a check on the tyranny of man against man, has been retarded and thrown to the background. The result is that the increased powers of the state, which must necessarily be exercised through individuals, are being used more for the enslavement and destruction of man than for his deliverance from tyranny and upholding the cause of truth and justice. It has been rightly remarked that while science has given man powers fit for the gods, to their use, the civilized man brings the mentality of a savage. The state, instead of being helpful in increasing human happiness for which it was originally meant, has become a menace to human happiness, with the individual being so enthralled by this idol that, willingly or unwillingly, he is working as a part of the machinery for the destruction of humanity.

It is to remedy this evil that Islam requires the vesting of state authority in the hands of men who are God-fearing before all. The state which the Holy Prophet founded was invested with physical force, as every state must necessarily be, but it was a unique service which he rendered to humanity that he spiritualized the greatest of all human physical forces. The head of the state in Islam is called both an Amir (lit., one who commands) and an Imam (lit., a person whose example is followed), i.e., a person who stands on a very high moral plane. On his deathbed the Holy Prophet gave an indication as to who should succeed him as the head of the Muslim state by appointing Abu Bakr, admittedly the fittest man, to lead prayers in his absence. For a long time this practice was continued, and the head of the state led the prayers. Righteousness — fear of God and regard for other people’s rights — was as necessary a qualification for the ruler as fitness to rule. Spiritual force alone could enable a man to control the powers which temporal authority gives him and which, in the absence of such force, are often in danger of being abused. The early Islamic state organisation, which combined the office of the spiritual and the temporal head of the community, was, therefore, the most perfect which the history of statecraft can show. The head of the state considered himself responsible to God, in the first place, for the exercise of his temporal authority.

The foundations of the state laid down by the Holy Prophet were thus spiritual. They were at the same time democratic in the truest sense of the word. There exists a misconception in some quarters that the Islamic state was a theocracy. The head of the Muslim state never considered himself a representative of God on earth but as a representative of men who had chosen him to serve them; nonetheless, he certainly considered himself responsible to God for every act that he did in the exercise of his authority. All people, including the ruler, had equal rights and obligations and were subject to the same law. The Holy Prophet himself did not claim any rights beyond those which other Muslims had. In the actual working of the state organisation, of which he was the founder and the head, there was nothing to distinguish him from the others. Outsiders came and asked: which of you is Muhammad? He lived in the simplest possible manner, and never claimed any superiority on account of his being a ruler. When his soldiers were digging a ditch for the defence of Madinah, he was there with his pick-axe, and when they were removing heaps of dust and stones, he was one of the labourers who were covered with dust. If ever there was a democracy free from all differences of heredity, rank or privilege, it was the democratic state of which foundations were laid by the Holy Prophet. Perhaps history cannot show a greater conqueror than ‘Umar, the second successor of the Holy Prophet, a conqueror and an administrator at one and the same time. Yet he would not stop even his lowest subjects from rebuking him in public. It is reported that an ordinary citizen once interrupted him repeatedly. “Fear God, O ‘Umar!” said the man; and when others wanted to stop him, ‘Umar himself intervened, saying: “Let him say so; of what use are these people if they do not tell me such things?” This monarch of four kingdoms visited a famine-stricken camp at night incognito, and finding a woman with no food to give to her children, he rushed back to Madinah, a distance of three miles, and took a sack of flour on his back to feed the distressed woman and her children. When a servant offered his services to carry the load, he said: “In this life you might carry my burden, but who will carry my burden on the day of Judgement?” Yet when this great servant of the people was lying on his death-bed and a young man lauded his great services, he said: “Enough, young fellow! It is sufficient if the evil I may have done in the exercise of authority is neutralised by any good that I have done”. It is such a mental attitude alone which can make men fit for ruling their fellow beings. But such a mentality is created only by a strong faith in God and a feeling of one’s responsibility to God.

It was such a responsible Government that Islam created, a government by men who realised that above all other things they were responsible to God for everything they did. The men to be honoured—and entrusting a man with command was certainly doing him honour—were those who paid the greatest regard to their duties. It was such men that were to be placed in authority over others. “Allah commands you to make over (positions of) trust to those worthy of them” (4:58). Every one who was entrusted with any authority was told that he was a ruler in his own sphere and that he was responsible to God for those placed under his trust: “Everyone of you is a ruler and everyone shall be questioned about his subjects; the king is a ruler and he shall be questioned about his subjects; and the man is a ruler over the people of his house and he shall be questioned about those under his care; and the woman is a ruler over the house of her husband and she shall be questioned about those under her care; and the servant is a ruler so far as the property of the master is concerned and he shall be questioned about that which is entrusted to him” (Bu. 11:11). The ruler or head of the state is, thus, along with all those persons who hold any authority over others, placed in the same category as a servant. Just as a servant is entrusted with a certain property for which he is responsible to his master, those entrusted with authority of the state, in whatever position they may be, are entrusted with the care of the people and guarding their rights, and for the proper discharge of their duties they are responsible, in the first place, to the Real Master, Who is God, and then to the people who have entrusted him with this charge. The first necessity of a good state organization is this mentality on the part of each one of its members, and the greatest stress is, therefore, laid on this in the Islamic concept of state.

The verses and hadith quoted above also show that hereditary kingship is foreign to the concept of the State in Islam. Nor is the Islamic state an autocracy, as uncontrolled authority is not vested in the head of the state. It has already been stated that the law was one for all, and all were one in the eye of the law including the man entrusted with the highest command, and including the Holy Prophet himself who was as much subject to law as any of his followers. Speaking of the most prominent qualities of the Muslims, the Holy Qur’an mentions an equally prominent quality: “And whose affairs are (decided) by counsel among themselves” (42:38). The chapter in which this verse occurs is entitled Shura or Counsel on account of the great democratic principle of counsel laid down here as the basis of the future state of Islam. This is one of the early revelations, when the Holy Prophet was still leading the life of a helpless and persecuted reformer, and shows how the two ideas of democratizing and spiritualizing the state were blended: “And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer and whose affairs are (decided) by counsel among themselves and who spend out of what We have given them” (42:38). The verse gives prominence to the great acts which are needed to spiritualize man, answering the call of God, praying to God and devoting oneself to the service of humanity, while laying down the principle for conducting the affairs of state. The verses that follow also show that the Holy Prophet wanted his followers to be trained on spiritual lines while preparing them for conducting the affairs of the state: “And those who, when great wrong afflicts them, defend themselves. And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and amends (matters thereby), his reward is with Allah; surely He loves not the wrong-doers. And whoever defends himself after his being oppressed, these it is against whom there is no way of blame. The way of blame is only against those who oppress men and revolt in the earth unjustly. For such there is a painful chastisement. And whoever is patient and forgives — that surely is an affair of great resolution” (42:39-43). These excellent rules for the defence of the Muslim community which was being oppressed and persecuted at that time, and for the forgiveness of the enemy that was bent upon its extirpation, clearly show that the basis was herein being laid of the Muslim State, because forgiveness could only be exercised towards a vanquished enemy. It was in their sufferings that the Muslims were being told to exercise forgiveness when their turn should come to take revenge upon a fallen enemy. The passion for revenge was thus being obliterated from their hearts from the very beginning and the physical force of the state was spiritualized by making it subject to moral considerations.

The Islamic State is a democracy in the truest sense of the word. The first successor to the Holy Prophet was Abu Bakr, who was elected the head of the state by the agreement of all parties, and so were the three successors that followed him. Why the state organisation was needed and what the constitutional position of the head of the state was, was explained by Abu Bakr in his very first address: “You have elected me as Khalifah, but I claim no superiority over you. The strongest among you shall be the weakest with me until I get the right of others from him, and the weakest among you shall be the strongest with me until I get all his rights … Help me if I act rightly and correct me if I take a wrong course … Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. In case I disobey God and His Messenger, I have no right to obedience from you”.

The head of the state was a servant of the state who was paid a fixed salary for maintenance out of the public treasury, like all other public servants. It was Abu Bakr, the very first successor of the Holy Prophet, who acted on this rule (Bu. 34:15). The head had no special privileges and in his private capacity he could be sued in the court like any other member of the community. The great ‘Umar appeared as a defendant in the court of a judge. Some of the orders given by him to his provincial governors were that they should be accessible at all hours of the day to those who had a complaint to make and that they should not keep a door-keeper who should prohibit people from approaching them. And further that they should accustom themselves to lead hard lives. The head of state carried on the administration with the help of ministers, all important state affairs being decided by a council.

Those entrusted with the work of government, including the head, were required to work for the good of the people: “There is not a man whom Allah grants to rule people, then he does not manage their affairs for their good but he will not smell the sweet odour of paradise” (Bu. 94:8). They were required to be gentle to the people and were forbidden to do anything which might cause aversion (Bu. 64:62). They were enjoined to lead simple lives and to be easily accessible to those who needed their services (MM. 17:1), to be Godfearing, (Bu. 94:16), to tax the different classes of people according to their capacity, to provide for those who could not earn and to have as much regard for the rights of the non-Muslims as for those of the Muslims (Bu. 62:8). The state was not only required to maintain uncared for families but also to pay the unpaid debts which were contracted for a lawful need (Bu. 43:11).

The people’s responsibility to the state is to respect its laws and obey its orders as long as they do not involve disobedience to God and His Messenger. The first successor of the Holy Prophet, Abu Bakr, in his first address to those who had sworn allegiance to him, said: “Help me if I am in the right, set me right if I am in the wrong”. And again: “Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger; in case I disobey Allah and His Messenger, I have no right to obedience from you”. The law of the Holy Qur’an was to be held supreme and it was the Holy Prophet who had laid down this rule of the supremacy of the law: “To hear and obey the authorities is binding, so long as one is not commanded to disobey God; when one is commanded to disobey God, he should not hear or obey” (Bu. 56:108). Thus while it was considered an act of great merit, “an excellent Jihad”, to speak out the truth in the presence of an unjust ruler (MM. 17), active opposition to constituted authority or rebellion against it was not allowed because the Holy Prophet had laid down the condition to hear and obey “whether we liked or disliked, and whether we were in adversity or ease, even if our rights were not granted,” and “the authority of the head could only be disputed if he committed open acts of disbelief in which you have a clear ordinance from Allah” (Bu. 93:2).

The law of the Holy Qur’an was supreme indeed, but there was no ban to making laws according to the needs of the people so long as they did not go against the spirit of the revealed law. On being appointed Governor of Yemen, Mu‘adh was asked by the Holy Prophet as to the rule by which he would abide. “By the law of the Qur’an,” was the reply. “But if you do not find any direction therein,” asked the Holy Prophet. “Then I will act according to the Sunnah of the Prophet,” was the reply. “But if you do not find any direction in the Sunnah of the Prophet,” he was again asked. “Then I will exercise my judgement and act on that,” came the reply. The Holy Prophet raised his hands and said: “Praise be to Allah Who guides the messenger of His Messenger as He pleases” (Bu. 23:11).

The necessary laws were, however, to be made by consultation in accordance with the general command: “And whose affairs are (decided) by counsel among themselves” (42:38). In reply to ‘Ali who enquired as to how to proceed in cases where there was no definite direction in the Holy Qur’an, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said: “Gather together the righteous from among my community and decide the matter by their counsel and do not decide it by one man’s opinion”. Counsel was freely resorted to by the Holy Prophet himself in all important matters. Madinah was attacked thrice by the Quraish of Makkah, and every time the Holy Prophet held a consultation with his followers as to how to meet the enemy. On one of these occasions he acted upon the opinion of the majority and marched out of Madinah to meet the enemy, although his own opinion was that the Muslim army should not leave the town. He definitely directed his followers to take counsel whenever an important matter was to be decided: “Never do a people take counsel but they are guided to the right course in their affair.” When some people disobeyed his orders in one of the battles and this act of theirs caused heavy loss to the Muslim army, he was still commanded to take counsel with them. “Pardon them and ask (Divine) protection for them, and consult them in (important) matters” (3:159).

It appears from the Holy Qur’an that people were gathered together for counsel on many important occasions: “Only those are believers who believe in Allah and His Messenger, and when they are with him on a momentous affair, they go not away till they ask his permission” (24:62).

It was due to these clear directions to make laws for themselves and to decide other important matters by counsel that the first successors of the Holy Prophet had councils to help them in all such matters. It was also in the early history of Islam that the great Imams, such as Imam Abu Hanifah, freely resorted to analogical reasoning in legislation, and Ijtihad was recognized as a source of Islamic law along with the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah. The two principles of democracy, the supremacy of the law and the taking of counsel in making new laws and deciding other important affairs, were thus laid down by the Holy Prophet himself. The third principle of democracy, the election of the head of the state, was also recognized by him. He went so far as to say that even a Black man could be appointed to rule over the Arabs and that obedience was due to him as to any other head (Bu. 10:54). It was due to such teachings of his that the election of a head was the first act of his companions after his death.

When the news of his death spread, the Muslims gathered together and freely discussed the question as to who should succeed the Holy Prophet as the head of the state. The Ansar, the residents of Madinah, were of the opinion that there should be two heads, one from among the Quraish and one from among themselves, but the error of this view was pointed out by Abu Bakr who made it clear in an eloquent speech that the state could have only one head (Bu. 62:6). And so Abu Bakr was elected, being as ‘Umar stated,” the best” of them and “the fittest of the Muslims to control their affairs” (Bu. 93:2). Fitness to rule was the only criterion to decide the election, as indeed in the Qur’anic injunction: “Allah commands you to make over (positions of) trust to those worthy of them” (4:58).

Justice was declared to be the corner-stone of the State which the Holy Prophet founded; in dealing equitably no distinction was to be made between friend and foe, between people whom one loved and those whom one hated: “O you who believe! be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and let not the hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably: be just that is nearer to piety; and be careful of your duty to Allah, for Allah is aware of what you do” (5:8) “O you who believe! Be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah even though it be against your own selves or your parents or near relatives—whether he be rich or poor, Allah has a better right over them both. So follow not your low desires lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from truth, surely Allah is Aware of what you do” (4:135). In a state, some men have necessarily to be placed in authority over others, but those placed in authority have been repeatedly warned that they would be answerable to God, first of all, for what they did in the exercise of authority. The warning to David is a warning to every true believer: “O David, surely We have made thee a ruler in the land; so judge between men justly and follow not desire, lest it lead thee astray from the path of Allah. Those who go astray from the path of Allah, for them is surely a severe chastisement because they forgot the day of Reckoning” (38:26).