Please login for Bookmark , Comment or Highlight ...
Your Questions Answered
Queries
Does a Muslim Ruler have the Right to Veto
Question: The following verse shows that the ruler of an Islamic state has the power to veto his confidants if he deems so.
فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ (159:3)
So ignore their faults and ask for God’s forgiveness for them and consult them in the affairs [of state]. Then, when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah. (3:159)
Please comment.
Answer: I am afraid this is an incorrect inference. In addition, the Qur’an is a internally coherent Book and each verse has a specific context, which, if disregarded, may lead to gross misinterpretation.
If we take a look at the context of 3:159, it becomes evident that the verse occurs in the group of verses in which the behaviour of the hypocrites and the events of the battle of Uhud and their aftermath are under discussion. The hypocrites, we know from the Qur’an, were given a time of respite so that they might reform themselves. However, once the time was over, they were severely dealt with as is evident from many verses of the Qur’an. For example:
يَاأَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدْ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنَافِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ (66:9)
O Prophet! Strive hard against the Disbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed. (66:9)
The battle of Uhud was the time when they were still in the period of respite. So, it was not appropriate to disregard them at that time. Consequently, the Prophet (sws) is told to keep consulting them in various affairs; however, he is not bound by what their majority says. If he decides contrarily, he should repose his trust in Allah and do what he has decided. This is a brief summary of the stress of the verse.
A more detailed look at the context of 3:159 and at the various historical facts shows that the Prophet (sws) had consulted the Muslims on whether they should fight the enemy from within the city or from the outside. The Hypocrites opined that they should fight from within the city while the true believers were of the opposite opinion. The Prophet (sws) it seems also held the latter opinion. So when he and the believers decided to go out and fight, the Hypocrites became angry and expressed their anger in various ways. Abdullah Ibn Ubayi for example departed right before the battle with his three hundred men saying that his opinion was ignored. Another group of the Hypocrites that stayed with the Muslims started spreading propaganda once the battle was over that the defeat was due to the wrong strategy adopted. Consequently, verses 3:156-8, while addressing the Hypocrites, mention these details in the following manner:
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَقَالُوا لِإِخْوَانِهِمْ إِذَا ضَرَبُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ أَوْ كَانُوا غُزًّى لَوْ كَانُوا عِنْدَنَا مَا مَاتُوا وَمَا قُتِلُوا لِيَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ حَسْرَةً فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ يُحْيِ وَيُمِيتُ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ وَلَئِنْ قُتِلْتُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَوْ مُتُّمْ لَمَغْفِرَةٌ مِنْ اللَّهِ وَرَحْمَةٌ خَيْرٌ مِمَّا يَجْمَعُونَ وَلَئِنْ مُتُّمْ أَوْ قُتِلْتُمْ لَإِلَى اللَّهِ تُحْشَرُونَ (3: 156-8)
O you who believe, be not like the disbelievers who say of their brethren when they are travelling through the land or fighting: ‘If they had stayed with us they would not have died or been slain’ so that Allah may make a cause of regret in their hearts. It is Allah Who gives life and death. And Allah knows what you do. And if you are killed or die in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all they amass [of worldly wealth]. And whether you die are or killed, verily, unto Allah you shall be gathered. (3:156-8)
Consequently, it is clear from these verses that the Prophet (sws) in his capacity of a Prophet (sws) was advised to deal with the Hypocrites of his times in a particular manner, as spelled out in the subsequent verse; in other words, this subsequent verse also like the previous ones refers to the Hypocrites:
فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ (159:3)
So ignore their faults and ask for God’s forgiveness for them and consult them in affairs. Then, when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah. (3:159)
These verses cannot be related to us in any way today. Technically speaking, the antecedent of the plural accusative pronoun in the imperative verb ‘شَاوِرْهُمْ’(consult)are the hypocrites of the Prophet’s times. Owing to his position as Prophet, Muhammad (sws) was divinely guided in their affairs and was told to deal with them with latitude until the Almighty signaled to him that the period of respite was over.
Consequently, the verse cannot be extended to anyone beyond the Prophet (sws).
Can a Woman Become a Head of State
Question: I know that Islam looks at men and women in an equal light. However, I have heard that in Islam, it is not permissible for a woman to become the ruler of a nation? Is this the case, and if so, why?
Answer: This is not the case. In Islam, the election of the head of state is based on the vote of the majority. Whoever enjoys the confidence of the majority whether he is a man or a woman is legally eligible for this post.
However, the only debate which may remain is that whether women in general are suitable for this job regarding their temperament and nature. Nevertheless, if the majority does elect a woman for this post, no one has the authority to veto the opinion of the majority.
Here someone may present the following Hadith to counter what has been said above:
عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ قَالَ لَقَدْ نَفَعَنِي اللَّهُ بِكَلِمَةٍ سَمِعْتُهَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَيَّامَ الْجَمَلِ بَعْدَ مَا كِدْتُ أَنْ أَلْحَقَ بِأَصْحَابِ الْجَمَلِ فَأُقَاتِلَ مَعَهُمْ قَالَ لَمَّا بَلَغَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّ أَهْلَ فَارِسَ قَدْ مَلَّكُوا عَلَيْهِمْ بِنْتَ كِسْرَى قَالَ لَنْ يُفْلِحَ قَوْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمْ امْرَأَةً (بخاورى: رقم 4425)
Abu Bakrahsays that he said: ‘Allah has given me the privilege of a word which I heard from the Messenger of Allah during the days of [the battle of] Al-Jamal, when I was about to join the people of Al-Jamal and fight with them’. When the Messenger of Allah heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes (Qisra), he said: ‘People who appoint a woman as their leader will never succeed’. (Bukhari, No: 4425)
However, in spite of being quoted in Bukhari, it suffers from the following flaws:
1. It is a Gharib Hadith. In Hadith parlance, a narrative which has just one narrator in any section of its chain is called Gharib. It makes the narrative quite weak. It is only Abu Bakrah who is reporting this narrative at the top of this chain.
2. It is evident from the very text of the narrative that it was never known until the battle of Jamal took place. It was brought forward only after A%’ishah (rta) faced ‘Ali (rta) in battle. Before that it was never heard of – which of course is quite strange.
3. Last but not least, if both the above two shortcomings are ignored and the Hadith is interpreted to imply prohibition for a woman from being elected the head of state, then this Hadith is against the Qur’an. It is the purport of the Qur’an (42:38) that anyone who enjoys the confidence of the majority is eligible to become the ruler of the Muslims. Nowhere does it exclude women from this general principle.
Authority of the Majority
Question: It is said that in Islam, collective affairs are to be decided through the principle of consultation and the majority opinion is to be imposed and accepted. My question is: What guarantee do we have that the majority has taken the correct decision?
Answer: When it is said that all differences of opinion in an Islamic state shall be settled by a majority vote, it does not mean at all that the opinion which is ultimately accepted shall necessarily be correct. It only means that just to run the affairs an opinion has been enforced until the time a stronger opinion emerges to take its place. This is only a way of settling differences of opinions and is no criterion for the correctness of a viewpoint. Only reasons and arguments decide what is right or wrong, and a majority or a minority opinion has no say in this regard.
Conditions of Revolt against an Islamic State
Question: What are the conditions of rebelling against an Islamic State?
Answer: The rebellion against an Islamic state can take two forms:
1. The rebels refuse to submit to the authority of the state and in doing so remain peaceful and patiently bear any aggression of the government that they may encounter as a result.
2. The rebels resort to militancy and armed warfare.
Islam imposes certain conditions on both these options. Before these conditions are explained, it needs to be appreciated that rebelling against Muslim rulers even when all the conditions are fulfilled never becomes obligatory upon Muslims. They can still choose to live under their rule.
I now turn to the conditions:
Case 1
If the first course outlined above is adopted then the following three conditions are required:
First, the rulers of the Muslims are guilty of openly and deliberately denying Islam or any of its directives.’ Ubadah Ibn Samit reports:
دَعَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَبَايَعْنَاهُ فَكَانَ فِيمَا أَخَذَ عَلَيْنَا أَنْ بَايَعَنَا عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ فِي مَنْشَطِنَا وَمَكْرَهِنَا وَعُسْرِنَا وَيُسْرِنَا وَأَثَرَةٍ عَلَيْنَا وَأَنْ لَا نُنَازِعَ الْأَمْرَ أَهْلَهُ قَالَ إِلَّا أَنْ تَرَوْا كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا عِنْدَكُمْ مِنْ اللَّهِ فِيهِ بُرْهَانٌ (مسلم: رقم 1709)
The Prophet called us to pledge allegiance to him which we did. We had been asked to pledge to the following: ‘We shall listen and obey whether willingly or unwillingly whether we are in difficulty or at ease, and even when we do not receive what is your right and that we shall not contest the authority of our rulers’. The Prophet of God said: You can only rise against them if you witness outright Kufr in any matter from them, in which you have a clear evidence from God. (Muslim: No. 1709)
The underlined portion of the Hadith, which states this condition of rebellion, is actually based on 4:591according to which Muslims are asked to obey their ‘Muslim’ rulers. This is indicated by the word ‘مِنْكُمْ’ (among you) which qualifies the word ‘اولو الْأَمْرِ’ (those in authority) in the verse. The implication being that they are required to obey the rulers as long as they remain Muslims. However, if these Muslim rulers do something which violates their status as Muslims, then these rulers are no longer required to be obeyed. In other words, only rulers who deny the requisites of being a Muslim in spite of being convinced about them are the ones who are actually implied here. Anything less than this does not suffice for the Muslims to rise against them.
Second, Muslims are not democratically able to change their rulers. The basis of this condition is found in the Qur’anic directive of ‘أَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ’ (Their system is based on their consultation)2. According to this directive, the rulers of Muslims should be democratically elected to office. Consequently, if Muslims are able to change their leadership by democratic means, resorting to rebellion and revolt is actually a violation of this principle. It amounts to revolt against the masses and not the rulers. This, according to the Shari‘ah, is spreading disorder in the land and is punishable by death in the most exemplary manner. The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ. (مسلم: رقم 1852)
You are organized under the rule of a person and someone tries to break your collectivity apart or disrupt your government, execute him. (Muslim: No. 1852)
Third, those who are undertaking this uprising are in majority and united under the leadership of one person. The basis of this condition also exists in the verse referred to above (42:38). In fact, it is a natural corollary of the principle stated in the verse: only the person who has the mandate of the majority is their legitimate ruler. If the person who is leading the uprising has the clear backing of the majority behind him, it means that the previous one has lost his mandate to rule. The majority is now willing to accept a new person in his place.
Case 2
If the second course is adopted, then besides the above mentioned three conditions, a fourth one must also be fulfilled: those who take up arms in revolt must establish their government in an independent piece of land. There is a consensus among all authorities of Islam that only an Islamic State has the authority to wage a militant struggle. No group, party or organization has the authority to lift arms.3
It is evident from this discussion that if Muslims intend to rise and rebel against their government they must fulfill certain conditions. If they do not do so, they have no right whatsoever to publicly refuse submission to their rulers. Moreover, even in the worst of circumstances, rebellion never becomes obligatory.
Status of Non-Muslim Citizens
Question: What exactly is the status of Non-Muslim citizens in a Muslim country? Do they have the same rights as Muslim citizens?
Answer: The issue of citizenship of an Islamic State needs a little elaboration. It is generally held by Muslim authorities that non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state are of two categories1:
(i) Dhimmis, viz. those who have come under an Islamic State on account of being subdued in a battle.
(ii) Musta’mins, viz. non-Muslim residents of Daru’l-Harb who temporarily reside in Daru’l-Islam.
It needs to be appreciated that both these categories of non-Muslims specific to the age of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta)2. The directives of Fiqh related to Dhimmis and Musta’mins consequently cannot be related to the non-Muslims of today.
The Non-Muslim minorities of today living in Muslim countries can only be classified as Mu‘ahids (citizenship by contract)3. Keeping in view the general welfare of the state, through mutual consent, any contract can be made with non-Muslims of today regarding their rights. As such, all dealings with them should be according to the terms of the treaty concluded with them.
Muslims are required Islamically to abide by these terms in all circumstances and to never violate them in the slightest way. Such violations according to Islam are totally forbidden and, in fact, amount to a grave transgression. The Qur’an says:
وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا (17 :34)
Keep [your] covenants; because indeed [on the Day of Judgement] you will be held accountable for them. (17:34)
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
أَلَا مَنْ ظَلَمَ مُعَاهِدًا أَوْ انْتَقَصَهُ أَوْ كَلَّفَهُ فَوْقَ طَاقَتِهِ أَوْ أَخَذَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا بِغَيْرِ طِيبِ نَفْسٍ فَأَنَا حَجِيجُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ (ابو داؤد: رقم 3052)
Beware! I myself shall invoke the justice of the Almighty on the Day of Judgement against the person who oppresses and persecutes a Mu‘ahid, or reduces his rights, or burdens him [with responsibilities] he cannot bear, or takes something from him against his will. (Abu Da’ud: No. 3052)
In this regard, the Qur’an has explicitly stated the principle that Muslims while dealing with their enemies must not exceed the limits of justice, not to speak of Mu‘ahids who have accepted to live peacefully in an Islamic State:
وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ (5 :8)
And let not the enmity of a people turn you away from justice. Deal justly; this is nearer to piety. (5:8)
As far as their rights are concerned, they should be given all the rights that are sanctioned by the norms of justice and fairness for people in a civilized society. For example:
Their life, wealth and honour should be protected by the state such that no one is able to lay hands on them.
They can be given independence in their personal law.
The needy and poor among them should be provided the basic necessities of life.
Their personal matters and religious rituals should be exempted from the law of the state and no interference should be made in their faith and religion.
Their places of worship should be given full protection.
They should be allowed to present their religion to others in a polite manner.
They should be allowed to be elected to public offices except to those which may require Muslims to preserve the Islamic identity of the state.
Parliamentary or Presidential Form of Government
Question: Does Islam endorse a parliamentary form of government or a presidential form of government?
Answer: The principle guideline given by Islam in forming a government – whatever be its type, structure and nature – is that it should come into being through the mandate of the masses. A government has right to remain in existence only if it enjoys the support of he majority.
Keeping in view this principle guideline, any form government can be adopted. If this primary condition is taken care of, then the decision should be made on the basis of the experience, practice and utility of the system.
Secularism and the Founder of Pakistan
Question: There are some political leaders of Pakistan who say that the founder of Pakistan, Quaid i Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted to create a secular Pakistan. If this is true, then are we bound by our founder’s vision?
Answer: The debate whether Pakistan had been created in the name of Islam or its founder had intended to establish in it a secular democracy has been going on here ever since its creation. In this regard, the Quaid’s speech in the Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947 is often presented as evidence on the fact that his intentions were to establish a secular Pakistan. It seems that this speech of the Quaid has unfortunately been misinterpreted.
The non-Muslims of Pakistan are Mu‘ahids ie, those have come under an Islamic State on account of a treaty with it. In their case, the Shari‘ah permits an Islamic state to conclude a treaty with them on whatever terms it deems proper and can even treat them equally with the Muslims politically by accepting for them all the rights which Muslims citizens are given by the Shari‘ah on the condition that the Mu‘ahids, as faithful citizens, accept the superiority of the Shari‘ah at the state level. Consequently, the Prophet (sws), in his own times, concluded a similar treaty with the Jews of Madinah. In this document, which came to be known as ‘The Misaq-i- Madinah’ the Jews acknowledged the superiority of the Shari‘ah by accepting Allah and His Prophet (sws) as the final authority in all differences of opinion. By virtue of this treaty, the Jews, as Mu‘ahids, were granted equal rights of citizenship in the state of Madinah:
وان يهود امة مع المؤمنين لليهود دينهم وللمسلميندينهم مواليهم وانفسم
And [according to this pact], the Jews are acknowledged with the Muslims as one nation. As far as religion is concerned, the Jews shall remain on theirs and the Muslims and their allies on theirs.1
The non-Muslims who became citizens of Pakistan at its birth agreed to live in this country of their own free will knowing full well its ideological status. They were well aware that at if they were to live as its citizens, they would have to accept the superiority of the Shari‘ah because the Quaid had unequivocally declared: ‘The Qur’an shall be the constitution of this state’, and had stated in one of his speeches: ‘We have not demanded Pakistan merely as a piece of land for the Muslims; we intend to make it a testing place for the implementation of Islam’.
It was this status of the non-Muslims which the Quaid as the founder of Pakistan and the leader of the Muslims of the sub-continent announced on 11th August 1947 in the Constituent Assembly. It was neither a statement concerning the secular nature of a state nor a statement annulled by subsequent statements. It was something which was in direct accordance with the Shari‘ah as regards the position of the non-Muslims of the newly founded state. It said:
... Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of an Islamic Sate.*
It is evident that this part of the Quaid’s speech actually means that there shall be no discrimination between citizens of Pakistan on the basis of religion. The words ‘because that is the personal faith of each individual’ have not be said in the context of deciding the religion of a state; the context, clearly concerns the rights of Muslim minorities and these words mean that an individual’s personal faith must not become the basis of special treatment by the state. Consequently, in light of these terms of the treaty, the non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan are liable to accept the supremacy of the Shari‘ah at the State level and not to challenge this status and in return the state of Pakistan is committed to accept them as politically equal to the Muslims as long as they remain faithful to this country and abide by the terms of the treaty concluded with them.
Establishment of an Islamic State
Question: My questions concern the establishment of an Islamic state in this modern era? What is the basic methodology? Please give a detailed answer.
Answer: Islam does not give any guidance on the strategy of establishing an Islamic state. It has left this matter to common sense and experience. The reason for this is that Muslims have a natural urge in them to live as a collectivity and adopt the collective directives of Islam. So, Islam has left this matter to this urge. Also, circumstances are different in different communities. So no pattern has been set. You have asked for a detailed answer, but I am afraid that there are no details. However, I would like to clarify one thing: Some religious scholars present the example of the Prophet Muhammad (sws); they say that he had adopted a particular method of setting up an Islamic state, and we Muslims should follow this example. I am afraid that neither did the Prophet (sws) ever undertake the task of establishing an Islamic state nor was he ever directed by the Almighty to do so.
The scholars who uphold this idea say that it is the religious obligation of every Muslim to strive for the supremacy of Islam in his country by all the means he can. They term it as an ‘Islamic Revolution’ and present the following verse in support of this view:
هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ (9:61)
It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth that he may proclaim it over all religions, even though the Idolaters may detest [this]. (61:9)
On the basis of the phrase ‘all religions’, it is understood that the followers of Islam must struggle for its dominance in their respective countries and territories. An analysis of the context of this verse shows that it belongs to the class of directives that relate to the established practice of the Almighty regarding His Rusul (Messengers) according to which a Rasul always triumphs over his nation.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُحَادُّونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ فِي الأَذَلِّينَ كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَأَغْلِبَنَّ أَنَا وَرُسُلِي إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ (58 :20-1)
Indeed, those who show hostility to Allah and His Rasul are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘I and my Rusul shall prevail’. (58:20)
Muhammad (sws) was also informed that he would triumph over his nation. He and his Companions (rta) were told that they would have to fight the Idolaters of Arabia until the supremacy of Islam was achieved there and that these Idolaters should be informed that if they did not desist from their evil ways they too would meet a fate no different from those of the other nations of Rusul:
قُلْ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ يَنتَهُوا يُغْفَرْ لَهُمْ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ وَإِنْ يَعُودُوا فَقَدْ مَضَتْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّهِ (8: 38-40)
Say to the disbelievers that if now they desist [from disbelief], their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already [a warning for them]. And fight them on until there is no more persecution and there prevails the religion of God everywhere. (8:38-40)
Consequently, it is to be noted that the word ‘al-Mushrikun’(the Idolaters) is used in 61:9 quoted earlier. The Qur’an uses this word specifically for the Idolaters of Arabia of the Prophet’s times. As a result, ‘all the religions’ in the conjugate clause can only mean all the religions of Arabia at that time. Therefore, the verse has no bearing on Muslims after the times of the Prophet (sws).
If the above analysis is correct, then striving to achieve the political supremacy of Islam is no religious obligation upon a Muslim. The verses from which this obligation has been construed specifically relate to the Rusul of the Almighty. Obviously, this inference does not mean that Muslims should not strive for this cause. It only indicates that this is not their religious responsibility.
Islamic Guidelines for Foreign Policy
Question: I was wondering how you believe Islam affects the foreign policy of a country, if at all?
Answer: Following are some of the important guidelines Islam gives to the makers of foreign policy of a Muslim country:
1. No aggression should be launched against a non-Muslim country to forcibly make it accept Islam or to annex it.1
2. All contracts with various countries must be honoured in all circumstances – unless of course the other country breaks or revises them.
3. War can only be declared on another country, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, if that country is guilty of oppression and tyranny and diplomatic talks fail. Here again war does not become obligatory; it merely becomes permissible.2
4. Friendly ties should be initiated with all countries of the world whatever their religion.
5. The enmity of any country should not stop a Muslim country from being fair and just towards that country.
Should Muslims of a Non-Muslim Country Unite Politically
Question: I have heard from a friend of mine that Islam directs all the Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to unite under one leadership and present themselves as a single entity. Is this true?
Answer: I am afraid that nowhere has Islam directed Muslims living in a non-Muslim country to unite under one leadership. This may serve their interest and be very beneficial for them. However, they have not been bound by their religion in this regard. It is up to them if they want to adopt such a policy.
Some people do present the following verse to contend that Islam has directed Muslims to politically unite:
إِنَّ هَذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُونِي(21: 93)
Indeed, this Ummah of yours is a single Ummah, and I am your Lord and Cherisher. (21:93)
If the context of this verse is deliberated upon, it comes to light that the Qur’an is not directing the present MuslimUmmah to remain united; on the contrary the word Ummah here is used for all the Prophets which are mentioned in the preceding verses (78-91). After enlisting most Prophets, the Qur’an says that all these Prophets are one Ummah in the sense that they brought the same religion and it is the people who introduced innovations in it:
وَدَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ إِذْ يَحْكُمَانِ فِي الْحَرْثِ إِذْ نَفَشَتْ فِيهِ غَنَمُ الْقَوْمِ وَكُنَّا لِحُكْمِهِمْ شَاهِدِينَ فَفَهَّمْنَاهَا سُلَيْمَانَ وَكُلًّا آتَيْنَا حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا وَسَخَّرْنَا مَعَ دَاوُودَ الْجِبَالَ يُسَبِّحْنَ وَالطَّيْرَ وَكُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ وَعَلَّمْنَاهُ صَنْعَةَ لَبُوسٍ لَكُمْ لِتُحْصِنَكُمْ مِنْ بَأْسِكُمْ فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ شَاكِرُونَ وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ عَاصِفَةً تَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا وَكُنَّا بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَالِمِينَ وَمِنْ الشَّيَاطِينِ مَنْ يَغُوصُونَ لَهُ وَيَعْمَلُونَ عَمَلًا دُونَ ذَلِكَ وَكُنَّا لَهُمْ حَافِظِينَ وَأَيُّوبَ إِذْ نَادَى رَبَّهُ أَنِّي مَسَّنِي الضُّرُّ وَأَنْتَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ فَكَشَفْنَا مَا بِهِ مِنْ ضُرٍّ وَآتَيْنَاهُ أَهْلَهُ وَمِثْلَهُمْ مَعَهُمْ رَحْمَةً مِنْ عِنْدِنَا وَذِكْرَى لِلْعَابِدِينَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِدْرِيسَ وَذَا الْكِفْلِ كُلٌّ مِنْ الصَّابِرِينَ وَأَدْخَلْنَاهُمْ فِي رَحْمَتِنَا إِنَّهُمْ مِنْ الصَّالِحِينَ وَذَا النُّونِ إِذْ ذَهَبَ مُغَاضِبًا فَظَنَّ أَنْ لَنْ نَقْدِرَ عَلَيْهِ فَنَادَى فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنْتَ سُبْحَانَكَ إِنِّي كُنتُ مِنْ الظَّالِمِينَ فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ مِنْ الْغَمِّ وَكَذَلِكَ نُنْجِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَزَكَرِيَّا إِذْ نَادَى رَبَّهُ رَبِّ لَا تَذَرْنِي فَرْدًا وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الْوَارِثِينَ فَاسْتَجَبْنَا لَهُ وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُ يَحْيَى وَأَصْلَحْنَا لَهُ زَوْجَهُ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْخَيْرَاتِ وَيَدْعُونَنَا رَغَبًا وَرَهَبًا وَكَانُوا لَنَا خَاشِعِينَ وَالَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهَا مِنْ رُوحِنَا وَجَعَلْنَاهَا وَابْنَهَا آيَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ إِنَّ هَذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُونِي وَتَقَطَّعُوا أَمْرَهُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ كُلٌّ إِلَيْنَا رَاجِعُونَ (21 :78-93)
And remember David and Solomon, when they gave judgement in the matter of the field into which the sheep of certain people had strayed by night: we did witness their judgement. To Solomon We inspired the [right] understanding of the matter: to each [of them] we gave judgement and knowledge; it was Our power that made the hills and the birds celebrate Our praises, with David: it was We who did [all these things]. It was We Who taught him the making of metal coats of mail for your benefit to guard you from each other’s violence. Will you then be grateful? [It was our power that made] the violent wind flow [tamely] for Solomon to his order to the land which We had blessed: for We do know all things. And of the evil ones, were some who dived for him, and did other work besides; and it was We who guarded them. And [remember] Job, when he cried to his Lord: ‘Truly distress has seized me, but You are the Most Merciful of those that are Merciful’. So We listened to him: We removed the distress that was on him, and We restored his people to him, and doubled their number, as a Grace from Ourselves, and a thing for commemoration for all who serve Us. And [remember] Isma‘il, Idris, and Dhu‘l-Kifl, all [men] of constancy and patience. We admitted them to our mercy, for they were of the righteous ones. And remember Dhu‘l-Nun, when he departed in wrath. He imagined that We would not call him to account! But he cried through the depths of darkness: ‘There is no god but You; glory to You. I was indeed wrong!’ So We listened to Him and delivered him from distress and thus do We deliver those who have faith. And [remember] Zakariyyah, when he cried to his Lord: ‘O my Lord! Leave me not without offspring, though You are the best of inheritors’. So We listened to him and We granted him Yahya. We cured his wife’s [barrenness] for him. These were ever quick in emulation in good works; they used to call on Us with love and reverence, and humble themselves before Us. And [remember] her who guarded her chastity: we breathed into her of Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples. Indeed, this Ummah of yours is a single Ummah, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore serve Me [and no other]. But [the later generations] cut off their matter [of unity], one from another: [yet] will they all return to Us. (21:78-93)
In other words, the words ‘Indeed, this Ummah of yours is a single Ummah’if interpreted keeping in view the context refers to the collectivity of the Prophets that came before Muhammad (sws). They have nothing to do with the Muslim Ummah.
73 Sects
Question: I read a Hadith about the Ummah of the Prophet (sws) being divided into 73 sects, and that only one will go to heaven. I wanted to know the definition of a sect, and the one which is on the right, and why?
Answer: By collecting and analyzing all the texts of the Hadith you have referred to, the picture which emerges ist:
i)The prediction stated in these A%hadith pertain to the period just after the Prophet (sws), and relates to events within the land of Arabia. Such A%hadith are meant to put Muslims on guard, and are also a means to substantiate the Prophethood of Muhammad (sws) for people of his times.
ii)The number 73 is not been used here in its literal sense. It is used here figuratively to emphasize a point. Such a usage has examples in every language. For example we say: ‘If Ahmad has faltered three times you will falter four times’. This does not mean that we are counting the number of times some one is going to falter. It only means that we are warning our addressee that he will falter more than Ahmad and therefore he should be very careful.
iii)The word ‘firqah’ here does not imply a religious sect. It means the various political factions and groups which do not submit to the authority of the state and create anarchy in the society.
iv)These A%hadith also direct Muslims to remain attached to the ‘al-jama‘ah’, when such a time of anarchy comes. The word ‘al-jama‘ah’means ‘state authority’, and does not mean a religious faction or group.
v) It is known that many factions like the Khawarij and the Saba’i created a lot of nuisance in the period after the Prophet (sws) by rebelling against the state authority. It is groups such as these which have been referred to in such A%hadith. The Prophet (sws) is urging his Companions (rta) and followers not to become part of such rebellious factions and to cling to the authority of the state.
The Baseless Doctrine of Vicegerency of Man
Question: What is the religious basis of the doctrine of vicegerency of man? Every book on Islamic directives of politics that I have come across mentions this doctrine. However, I am unable to understand the real line of argument regarding the doctrine.
Answer: Your information is correct. The doctrine of vicegerency of man has, over the years, remained the basis of Muslim political thought. In this regard, some of our scholars have also coined the term of ‘popular vicegerency’ as against ‘popular sovereignty’ of a democratic order. According to this doctrine, every man has been delegated some powers by the Almighty and as such he is His deputy on earth. In my humble opinion1, this doctrine has no basis at all in the Qur’an. The verse most often quoted in its support is the one which goes against it the most:
وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً (30:2)
I am going to make a khalifah in the earth. (2:30)
The word khalifah in the Arabic language has two meanings:
1. A person who succeeds someone by assuming his position of power and authority.
2. A person vested with power and authority.
The exponents of this doctrine attribute the first meaning to the word khalifah in the above verse, as indeed they do wherever the verse occurs in the Qur’an. A little deliberation shows that the word ‘khalifah’ has been used in this verse in the second meaning ie. a person vested with power and authority. Linguistically, it is not possible to adopt the first meaning. Grammatical principles dictate that the word khalifah which actually occurs as a common noun in the verse, should have either been defined by the article alif lam or by a determining noun (mudaf ilayh) if the first meaning were to be attributed to it. Someone may question whether the word has ever been used in the second meaning ie. ‘a person vested with power and authority’ in the Arabic language. The following verses of the Qur’an, the most authentic Arabic work, conclusively use the word in this meaning:
وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ جَعَلَكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ مِنْ بَعْدِ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَزَادَكُمْ فِي الْخَلْقِ بَسْطَةً فَاذْكُرُوا آلَاءَ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ (69:7)
And remember when He made you khulafa after Noah’s folks. (7:69)
يَادَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ (26:38)
O David! We have made you a khalifah on the earth, so rule with justice among men. (38:26)
The verb ‘اِسْتَخْلَفَ’ (istakhlafa) derived from khalifah is also used in the same meaning:
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ (55:24)
Allah has promised those among you who have accepted faith [in the actual sense] and have done righteous deeds, that He will make them khalifah in this land as He had made their ancestors khalifah before them. (24:55)
The people of ‘A%d have been addressed in the first of the above verses, as is evident from its context. It is a historically proven fact that there exists a time lapse of many centuries between the People of ‘A%d and the People of Noah (sws), during which many other nations arose to a position of political ascendancy. Moreover, the places where these two nations gained power were in totally different parts of the Arabian peninsula. So the People of ‘A%d could not have succeeded the People of Noah (sws). Hence the first meaning cannot be attributed to the word khulafa in this verse. In the second and third verses, similar contradictions result if the word is used in the conventional meaning. In the second verse, why is the Almighty singling out the Prophet David (sws) as His khalifah when according to the doctrine every man on earth is God’s khalifah? In the third verse, how come the believers are being promised khilafah, a position they already have by birth? However, all these verses become meaningful if the word is understood to imply the second meaning.
It would be appropriate here to point out that the second meaning ie. ‘a person vested with power and authority’ is actually a developed form of the first ie. ‘a person who succeeds someone by assuming his position of power and authority’. Such developments in the meaning of a word often occur in a language, which is always under a state of evolution. The word ‘وَارِثْ’ warith and can be presented as an example. It originally means ‘an heir ie. the owner of a legacy’. But it also means ‘an owner’ simply, as is evident from the following Qur’anic verse:
وَإِنَّا لَنَحْنُ نُحْيِ وَنُمِيتُ وَنَحْنُ الْوَارِثُونَ (23:15)
Indeed, We give life and death and We are the Warith [Owners] of all. (15:23)
It would be quite ridiculous to interpret the verse in the light of the first meaning.
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the doctrine is a logical fallacy.
Imposition of Khiraj
Question: The Caliph ‘Umar (rta) imposed Khiraj on the conquered lands of Syria and Iraq. What is the justification of this imposition? Is it a kind of tax?
Answer: The Khiraj imposed by the Caliph ‘Umar (rta) on the conquered lands of Syria and Iraq was nothing more than rent imposed on public property. He refused to distribute it among the warriors and was of the opinion that it should belong to the state. However, instead of the state itself managing these vast areas, he chose to give them in the hereditary possession of the owners on the condition of a fair rent that would be paid to the state. This amount varied according to the produce and nature of the land. It is pertinent to mention here that Khiraj was imposed only on cultivated lands or lands which were a source of income for the farmers. Residential lands, for example were totally exempt from Khiraj.
Consequently, it cannot be regarded as a tax.
What is the System of Khilafat?
Question: It is argued by many religio-political leaders of most Muslim countries thatKhilafat is the name of political system envisaged by Islam? What exactly are the features of the Islamic Khilafat?
Answer: In Arabic, the word ‘Khilafat’ is synonymous with the English word ‘political system’ regardless of the fact that it is a political system of a Muslim country or a non-Muslim one. The word in itself holds no religious sanctity. Needless to say that Islam does not give a political system to its followers. It only gives certain principal guidelines in this matter. The task of formulating a system on the basis of these guidelines has been left to human intellect. Whatever system it evolves, giving due regard to these guidelines, can be called Khilafat. Of course, it is not at all necessary to stick to this term for the political system of a Muslim country since it has no religious significance.