Amruhum Shūrā
Baynahum
Their system is based on their consultation.
(42:38)
The system of government of an Islamic State is based upon the above quoted
verse. The extensive meaning this short verse encompasses and the guidance
obtained from it about the political set-up envisaged by Islam need a detailed
discussion, which follows.
The word Amr used in this verse has many meanings in Arabic.
However, it is quite evident from the context and placement of this verse that
here it means ‘system’. This meaning has been incorporated in it from the depth
found in its meaning of ‘decree’. When the word ‘decree’ becomes related to
people, it prescribes certain limits for itself and establishes certain rules
and regulations. In such cases, it implies both the decrees which emanate from
political authority and the collective affairs. A little deliberation shows that
the English word ‘system’ is used to convey the same meaning.
Since the Qur’ān has not specified it by any adjective, so all
sub-systems which are part of the political system must be considered included
in its connotation. In fact, all affairs of state like the municipal affairs,
national and provincial affairs, political and social directives, rules of
legislation, delegation and revocation of powers, dismissal and appointment of
officials, interpretation of Islam for the collective affairs of life -- all
come under the principle laid down in this verse. In other words, no area or
department under an Islamic Government can be beyond the jurisdiction of this
principle.
Next comes the word Shūrā. It is a verbal noun (Masdar)
of the category Fu‘lā and means ‘to consult’. Owing to the fact that it
occurs as an inchoative (Khabr) in the given verse, the meaning of the
verse is not the same as of Shāwirhum fi’l amr. Fa idhā ‘azamta fa tawakkal
‘alalāh (Consult them in the affairs of the state and when you reach a
decision, put your trust in Allah (3:159)), which is often quoted as its
parallel. To convey the same meaning as this verse, the words should, perhaps,
have been something like this: Wa fi’l-amri hum yushāwarūn which would
mean: ‘And in the affairs [of state] they are consulted’. In this case, it would
have been necessary that in the whole society the rulers and the ruled be
distinct. The ruler in such a case would have to be divinely appointed or
nominated by an innocent Imam or be someone who had seized power by force.
Whatever be the way he reached the position of head of state, he would have only
been obligated to consult people in matters of national interest before forming
his own opinion. He would not have been bound to accept a consensus or a
majority opinion. Acceptance or rejection of an opinion would have rested on his
own discretion. He would have all the right to accept a minority opinion and
reject a majority one.
However, the style and pattern of the verse Amruhum Shūrā Baynahum
(42:38) demands that even the head of an Islamic State be appointed through
consultation; the system itself be based on consultation; everyone should have
an equal right in consultation; whatever done through consultation should only
be undone through consultation; everyone part of the system should have a say in
its affairs, and in the absence of a consensus, the majority opinion should
decide the matter.
The difference in the meanings of the two verses can be appreciated if the
following example is kept in mind. If it is said: ‘The ownership of this house
shall be decided after consulting these ten brothers’, then it means that only
the ten brothers have the authority to make the decision and the opinion of
anyone of them cannot prevail over the others. If all of them do not agree in
the matter, a majority opinion would be decisive. But, if the above sentence is
changed a little to ‘In deciding the ownership of this house, these ten brothers
shall be consulted’, then this sentence only means that someone else has the
final say. It will be his opinion which will finally be executed. The only thing
he must do is to consult the ten brothers before forming his own opinion.
Obviously, he cannot be forced to accept the consensus or majority opinion of
the brothers.
Since, in the opinion of this writer, the collective system of the Muslims
is based on Amruhum Shūrā Bainahum (42:38), the election of their ruler
as well as their representatives must take place through consultation. Also,
after assuming a position of authority they will have no right to overrule a
consensus or a majority opinion of the Muslims in all the collective affairs.
The Prophet (sws) is reported to have said:
Allah’s hand is over the collectivity. Therefore,
[when there arises a difference of opinion] follow the [opinion of the]
majority. (Mustadrak, Kitābu’l-‘Ilm)
Mawlānā Abu’l-A‘lā Mawdūdī comments on this verse in the following
words:
The words Amruhum Shūrā Bainahum (Their
system is based on their consultation, (42:38)), by their nature and scope
entail five things:
Firstly, people whose interests and rights relate
to the collective affairs should be given the freedom to express their opinion,
and they should be kept totally aware of the actual way in which their affairs
are being run; they should also have the right to object and to criticise if
they see anything wrong in the way their affairs are being conducted and the
right to change those in charge if the faults are not rectified. It is outright
dishonesty to forcibly silence people or to run affairs without taking them into
confidence. No one can regard this attitude to be in accordance with this verse
Secondly, the person who is to be entrusted to run
the collective affairs of the people should be chosen through their absolute
free consent. Consent obtained through force and intimidation, greed and
gratification, deception and fraud is no consent at all. The ruler of a country
is not one who obtains this position by hook or by crook; the real ruler is the
person whom people choose freely without any compulsion.
Thirdly, the people chosen for consultation should
enjoy the confidence of the majority. Consequently, those who are worthy of
consultation can in no way be regarded to enjoy the confidence of the people in
the true sense if they acquire this position through force, extortion or fraud
or by leading people astray.
Fourthly, the people who are consulted must
express their opinions in accordance with their knowledge, faith and conscience
and should have the complete freedom for such an expression. If, because of
fear, greed or some prejudice people are led to give opinions which are against
their belief and conscience, then this is disloyalty and infidelity and is a
negation of the principle of consultation.
Fifthly, a decision which is made through the
consensus or majority opinion of the members of the Shūrā or which has
the mandate of the people behind it must always be accepted. Because if one
person or group insists on an opinion, then consultation becomes baseless. The
Almighty has not said: ‘They are consulted in their affairs’; on the contrary,
He has said: ‘Their system is based on their consultation’. Merely consulting
people does not fulfil this directive; it is necessary that a consensus or
majority opinion be considered as decisive in running the affairs. (Abu’l-A‘lā
Mawdūdī, Tafhīmu’l-Qur’ān, 3rd ed., vol.4, [Lahore:
Idārah Tarjumānu’l Qur’ān, 1984], pps 509-510)
This principle of consultation as laid down by the Qur’ān is also in
accordance with the established norms of sense and reason. No Muslim can be free
of faults or shortcomings. He can be the most distinguished as far as piety and
knowledge are concerned; he can be the most suitable for the position of
authority he holds and can even consider himself so. But even with these
abilities, he cannot attain the position of Khilāfat without the general
opinion of the Muslims. Also, his assumption of this position after being
elected through a majority mandate does not necessitate at all that he cannot
err or has the prerogative to overrule a consensus or a majority opinion of the
authorised people. The Prophet (sws) had this prerogative because he, being
divinely guided, could not err. Even so, not one example can be cited from
history in which he had ignored a majority opinion in favour of his own.
A Muslim ruler is indeed only one individual and everyone will acknowledge
that the opinion of a group of people has more chances of being correct than
that of a single person. A God-fearing Muslim ruler should regard his own
opinion in the way a great jurist used to: ‘We consider our opinion as correct
but concede the possibility of an error, and the consider the opinion of others
as incorrect but concede the possibility of correctness in it.’
Moreover, if the people consulted know that even their consensus and
majority opinion have all the chances of being rejected, they would not agree to
offer their opinion in the first place. Even if forced to do so, they would
never take serious interest in it. They would never deeply reflect on the issue
under discussion. They would reluctantly come to the session of consultation
only to sorrowfully leave it. They would never have mental and emotional
involvement with the political system or the various institutions of the sate.
While delineating on this psychological aspect, Abū Bakr Jassās
writes:
It is not proper to consider that this directive
of consultation is merely to please and honour the companions of the Prophet nor
is it proper to think that it has been given so that the Ummah should
follow the Prophet in this regard in such matters. On the other hand, if the
companions knew that their opinion would neither be followed nor held in any
regard after they had used all their intellectual abilities to form it, this
would not have pleased or honoured them; instead they would have been totally
discouraged, considering that their opinions are neither good enough to be
acceptable nor fit enough to be followed. Therefore, such an interpretation of
this directive of consultation is baseless and cannot be accepted. Furthermore,
how can this aspect of the interpretation that this directive was merely given
to teach the Prophet’s way to the Ummah be regarded as correct when the
person who says this himself knows that the Ummah is aware of the fact
that giving such an opinion was neither of any use nor was it followed in a
particular matter. (Abū Bakr Jassās, Ahkāmu’l-Qur’ān, vol. 2, [Beirut: Dāru’l-Kitāb al-‘Arabī,
1997], p. 41)
Here, there is the possibility that someone might present the offensive
launched by the Caliph Abū Bakr (rta) against those who in his times had
desisted from paying Zakāh and his attitude about the departure
of the army led by Usāmah Ibn Zayd as testimony to deny what has been
said above. Consequently, it is necessary that the true nature of these two
incidents be explained. My mentor Amīn Ahsān Islāhī
comments on these in the following words:
Deliberation on the action taken against those who
were evading Zakāh reveals a few facts:
Firstly, this matter had nothing to do with the
Caliph or the members of the Shūrā. Abū Bakr (rta) had never
presented this issue in the Shūrā. Matters on which there is no direct
guidance provided by the Qur’ān and Sunnah or those which relate
to the general well-being of the public are generally presented in the Shūrā. The matter of Zakāh evasion has been explicitly dealt with in the
Qur’ān. In an Islamic state, people lose their rights of Muslim citizenship
if they refuse to pay Zakāh to the public treasury. This is categorically
laid down in the Islamic Sharī‘ah. Therefore, Abū Bakr (rta) was
not required to present this matter before the Shūrā. On the contrary, it
was his responsibility as a Caliph to implement a directive of the Qur’ān.
Consequently, this is precisely what he did. An example to illustrate this even
further is that if a group of people creates a law and order situation in an
Islamic state by going on a rampage of killing people, then the Caliph is not
required to ask the permission of the Shūrā to deal with this nuisance;
it is indeed his duty to freely use his authority to implement the punishment
prescribed by the Qur’ān for such criminals.
Secondly, those who had expressed their
reservations on this action of the Caliph Abū Bakr (rta) did so because
they had misunderstood a Hadīth of the Prophet (sws). Abū Bakr (rta)
himself explained this Hadīth in the light of another detailed Hadīth,
which he himself had heard from the Prophet (sws). This satisfied the people. It
is obvious that a Hadīth which is narrated by Abū Bakr (rta)
himself is extremely reliable and therefore has great importance.
Thirdly, the declaration of the Caliph Abū Bakr (rta) that he would fight alone with these evaders of Zakāh if he
finds no one to fight with them is not an expression of veto from him; it is on
the contrary an expression of the responsibility imposed on a Caliph by Islam in
implementing a definite and explicit directive. In Islam, the real
responsibility of a Caliph in implementing the directives of Allah and His
Prophet (sws) is that he should try his utmost in their implementation even if
no one supports him. He is not required to be bound by the opinion of the people
in categorical matters of the Sharī‘ah. Only matters in which there is no
direct guidance provided by the Qur’ān and Sunnah or those which
relate to the general well being of the public need the approval of the people
eligible for consultation.
Similar is the case of the departure of the army
led by Usāmah (rta). All arrangements for this had already been completed
in the life of the Prophet (sws) himself. It is he who had selected the people
who would constitute this army. The Prophet (sws) himself had hoisted the flag
of the army. If the Prophet (sws) had not fallen severely sick, the army would
have been on its way. The Prophet (sws) could not recover from his sickness and
died. Abū Bakr (rta) then assumed charge as Caliph. He quite naturally
thought that his greatest responsibility as a Caliph was to send the army which
had been prepared by the Prophet (sws) and about whose early departure the
Prophet (sws) was very anxious. As the Caliph, it was his great honour as well
as his primary responsibility to execute a prior directive of the Prophet (sws).
He was not required to consult his people for this because all matters
concerning the army had already been settled by the Prophet (sws). As a the
successor to the Prophet (sws), it was his duty to enforce these directives
instead of amending them. So, when some people, because of the peculiar
circumstances which had arisen, regarded this campaign to be against the call of
the day, Abū Bakr (rta) asserted unequivocally that he would not furl the
flag which had been unfurled by the Prophet (sws).
Consequently, these two incidents can in no way be
presented as evidence to the fact that a ruler can veto the decision of his
Shūrā members. The only thing to which they bear testimony is that in the
enforcement of explicit directives of Allah and His Prophet (sws), no ruler is
required to consult his Shūrā members. In fact, his real duty is to
implement them. (Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, Islāmī Riyāsat, 1sted., [Lahore: Makatbah Markazī
Anjuman i Khuddāmu’l-Qur’ān, 1977], pp. 36-37)
_____________________