The Humble I

If Muslim political engagement isn’t to be ungodly or Machiavellian, what are the core Revealed principles that must lie at the heart of our political outlook and actions? Or is politics always unethical and unclean such that those trying to traverse the path of taqwa should steer clear of it? And do specific political events only have one clear-cut Islamic political solution (or ruling), or are political events open to valid differing? Is it permissible in Islam to split and fragment over political differences? And lastly who, according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, has a right to be a spokesperson for Muslim political affairs? The question of politics and the Friday pulpit will also briefly be touched upon. These are the main concerns addressed in this post. But first a little background and context:

BACKGROUND:

Around the 1960s onwards, especially in Arab countries where authoritarian and military regimes had seized power, many Muslim scholars advocated the idea that: al-siyasah najasah – ‘Politics is impure (lit. ‘filthy’).’ Some even made it a maxim of their teaching and da‘wah that: min al-siyasah tark al-siyasah – ‘Politics [today] requires leaving politics.’ This last aphorism was particularly associated with the late Salafi scholar, Shaykh al-Albani.

The reasoning behind their stance was straightforward enough. Not denying that siyasah is a clear part of Islam and Islamic rulings, they simply pointed out that rather than politics being the art and craft of governing to bring about what ought to be, and the procurement of benefits (as per the five great Islamic interests: preservation of religion, life, intellect, property and lineage), politics was now fully Machiavellian. It was now about the pursuit of power, consolidating control over it, eliminating competitors and opponents, means justifying the ends, ensuring stability and order regardless of the method employed, and being ethical regarded as political weakness. ‘Might is right’ would be the political philosophy of the day. As for the public interest or maslahah, this was now being seen, not in terms of religion, but in terms of one Western ideology or another – then it was a case of either Capitalism or Communism.

Such politics was steeped in ungodly, irreligious and unethical practices, with one authoritarian ruler or shabby tyrant after another entrenching this notion in real terms, that politics is filthy. These scholars, therefore, advised to keep one’s head down, learn and practice one’s Islam, revive the religious stagnation of the Muslim masses, and weather the various political storms of the age with sabr – active perseverance. In this way, Allah’s help and victory will surely come about, as promised in Revelation.

Of course, not all scholars took this apolitical view. But enough of them did (if not in practice, then in theory at least). The more politically-inclined scholarly outlook was expressed in this maxim: ‘Muslims who do not concern themselves with politics will be governed by politicians who do not concern themselves with Islam.’ It could be justifiably argued that only with the Arab Spring did a collective scholarly rethink about siyasah being najasah or not really starts to happen in Arab scholarly discourse. As for the majority of the ummah in the non-Arab world, their scholarly story vis-a-via politics wasn’t quite the same.

This small contribution to the wider scholarly conversation about the relationship between politics and religion (and ethics) is what the following ten points try to address:

PRINCIPLES:

1 – Let us first define what is meant by the term siyasah or ‘politics’. Islamically, and according to classical scholarly convention, siyasah refers to: ‘Undertaking a matter in a way that brings about its rectification.’1 Specifically: ‘Politics is whatever action brings people closer to righteousness and further from corruption, even if the Messenger, peace be upon him, did not explicitly stipulate it, nor was revelation sent concerning it.’2 Putting a little more flesh on it, al-Raghib said: ‘Politics is of two types: Firstly, the governance of a person over himself: his own conduct, body, and personal affairs. Secondly, the governance of others, such as his family and the people of his community.’3 It is in the second sense, governance of the collective, that siyasah is normally used. So in essence, politics is the management of a country’s internal and external affairs. In pre-modern texts, this art or science went by the name of: ahkam al-sultaniyyah – ‘Rulings related to governance.’

2 – While hermits and their like can avoid living in, and depending on, social groupings or society, that is not the norm for us humans. Instead, the norm, ever since hunter-gatherer times, is that humans are social creatures by nature. They need communities, and these communities require management of their interests and organization of their various relationships. This, essentially, is the function of politics. Therefore, it is nigh on impossible for a society to exist without dedicated political actors; i.e. politicians. This is the only sensible way to manage and arrange human collectives and allow for order, stability and growth; short of anarchy or a free-for-all. It is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘If three people set out on a journey, they should appoint one of them as their leader.’4 Of course, as scholars have long pointed out, if that is the case for just three people, and for just one aspect of life, then more so the case for an entire society with all its collective matters and complexities.

3 – The Prophet, peace be upon him, functioned not just as a religious guide and legislator, but as a judge and a political leader too; his teachings and actions can be divided accordingly. Al-Qarafi explained: ‘His actions, peace be upon him, fall into different categories: some of them are by way of conveying revelation and issuing fatwas, by consensus; some are unanimously agreed to be acts of judgment (qada); some are unanimously agreed to be acts of leadership (imamah); and some are disputed among scholars, as they may fall between two or more categories – so some scholars consider one aspect to predominate, while others consider another to predominate.’5 He then says that the teachings in the first category constitute the bulk of the prophetic teachings and are there to be generally emulated by one and all. As for the next two categories – judge and state leader – these cannot and should not be emulated by anyone, except those in the capacity of a judge or a leader.

4 – Even in his capacity as head of state, scholars distinguished between what was explicitly revealed to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and between his personal ijtihad. As for the latter, a learned or highly-experienced person could differ with his specific, situational ijtihad. This distinction is illustrated in the question posed by al-Hubab b. al-Mundhir during the Battle of Badr. He asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, is this something you did by revelation, or by your own judgment?’ The Prophet replied: ‘By my own judgment, O Hubab.’ So al-Hubab said: ‘Then the proper strategy is to place the water behind you, so that if you need to withdraw, you can retreat to it.’ So he accepted that from me.6

5 – Because weighing-up the benefits or harms, or the safety or dangers, of specific political events is usually ijtihadi, we are taught in the shari’ah not to ascribe the judgement to Islam, but to one’s own personal ijtihad. No one may claim that their personal judgment represents the ruling of Allah and is categorically right. Rather, one presumes it is right (with the possibility of it being an error). So we read in one hadith that the Prophet, peace be upon him, advised a commander: ‘If you besiege a fortress and they ask you to grant them a decision according to Allah’s judgement do not grant them that; instead, grant them your own judgment, for you do not know whether you will arrive at Allah’s judgement about them or not.’7

6 – Of course, in any issue of ijtihad – even political ones – we may agree or passionately disagree, but Orthodoxy’s voice is: la inkar fi masa’il al-ijtihad – ‘There can be no rebuke in matters of [legitimate] ijtihad.’ Ibn Taymiyyah wrote: ‘As for statements or actions that are not known to [categorically] oppose the Book or the Sunnah, but are rather the provenance of ijtihad which people of knowledge and faith have differed in, then such affairs may be cut and dry to some who Allah has made the truth clear to. However, it is not permitted to make binding upon people what might be clear to some, but not clear to others.’8 And: ‘Valid ijtihad is not what leads to the degrees of sedition or schism, except when it is accompanied by transgression; not because of the ijtihad itself … Sedition (fitnah) and schism (furqah) are not due to ijtihad, but to the various types of transgression accompanying it.’9 Thus, having different views about the same political issue or crisis must never be a cause for hearts to split or schisms between Muslims to be ignited. To be concerned for the ummah’s welfare, while at the same time splitting the ummah over ijtihadi issues, is a clear sign of misguidance. The one doing so is part of the ummah’s problem, not part of its healing or solution.

7 – The Qur’an is explicit as to who has the Islamic right to assess and weigh-up socio-political matters for the ummah. It states: When a matter of security or fear comes to them, they circulate it. But if they had only referred it to the Messenger, or to those in authority, those who are able to think out the matter would have known it. [Q.4:83] One of the scholars explained: ‘This is a moral lesson from Allah to His servants regarding this inappropriate behaviour of theirs. It teaches that when a matter of importance or public interest comes to them — be it related to security and the joy of the believers, or to fear involving harm — they must verify and not rush to spread such news. Rather, they should refer it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them — the people of sound judgment, knowledge, sincerity, intellect, and composure — who understand matters and recognise benefits and their opposites … Hence He said: those who are able to think out the matter would have known it; meaning, those who can extract its proper understanding through their insight, sound reasoning and correct knowledge. In this is evidence for an ethical principle: when an issue arises for discussion, it must be entrusted to those qualified for it and referred to its proper people.’10

8 – In real terms, ‘those in authority’ applies to the head of state and those worthy of being consulted among highly seasoned scholars and qualified political analysts who have the expertise to rigorously assess complex political and security issues. Islam grants no room whatsoever for zealous Muslim activists or trigger-happy tweeters and YouTubers who possess none of the above skill-set to be spokespersons about the affairs of this blessed ummah. One hadith states: ‘When the affair is given to other than its rightful people, then await the Final Hour.’11 Another foretells: ‘There shall come upon people years of deceit in which the liar will be believed, the truthful one disbelieved, the treacherous will be trusted and the trustworthy one considered treacherous; and the Ruwaybidah will speak out.’ It was said: Who are the Ruwaybidah? The Prophet, peace be upon him, replied: ‘The lowly, contemptible one who will speak out about public affairs.’12 After such consultation with learned scholars and political experts, the end decision rests with the head of state; as per the scholarly maxim: amr al-jihad mawkulun ila’l-imam wa ijtihadihi — ‘The question of jihad is entrusted to the head of state and his decision.’13

9 – The reason for the above is that this level of siyasah — i.e. politics concerning a country as a whole — requires a bird’s eye view of affairs, and of being fully conversant with the political, military and economic state of the nation, as well as its internal and external strengths, weaknesses and threats. Only after weighing up these pros and cons, and any lesser of the two evils, may a major political course of action be taken. Weighing up must be done in the light of Revealed teachings, and hence the role of consulting seasoned scholars in the decision making. In such politics, it is hardly ever a matter of deciding between a simple good and evil. Instead, it is usually a matter of weighing up competing and complex sets of good and evil, benefit and harm. Often, it will be a case of letting the lesser evil pass (it is still seen as an evil or wrong) for the sake of the greater good.  This is not considered unethical, if the intention is sound. The Holy Qur’an states: Revile not those to whom they pray besides God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance. [Q.6:108] Moreover, all this is what can make such political decision making highly ijtihadi.

10 – A word about discussing politics from the Friday pulpit (although, in truth, this requires a separate blog post): The above principles have mostly dealt with politics of the ‘sultan’. But as said before, there is a type of politics or governance that applies to oneself, one’s family and one’s immediate community. This is the type of ‘local’ politics that is mostly required to be addressed from the pulpit. For siyasah in Islam, we must recall, is essentially: Whatever action brings people closer to righteousness and further away from corruption. Thus, the Friday preacher speaks about what benefits people in their religion, morals, livelihood, social affairs and security. This includes gentle advice about: Public trust issues (Muslim landlord charging extortionate rents; zakat being misused; mosque funds not being transparent; why is there a growing disconnect between scholars and the wider public; etc.). Social issues (high dowries, extravagant weddings; increasing family breakdowns; children being weaponised in divorce cases; helping families whose fathers have been unjustly incarcerated; etc.). Moral issues (such as discussing porn and drug addictions; mental health problems; parent-children relationships; etc.). And, of course, major, ummatic political issues (global oppression of Muslims and their suffering; increasing societal Islamophobia; etc.). The khatib addresses such issues briefly (it is a sermon, not a seminar) and with general religious and ethical guidelines. One avoids misusing the pulpit and exploiting its sanctity by not triggering conflicts or schisms between believers, by wisely and gently addressing sensitive issues, and by not being partisan or sectarian or calling out specific groups and individuals by name. Our politics must be the politics of unifying hearts, not splitting them. Our politics must be the politics of care, reform and public welfare. More than that, our pulpit politics must be about attaching hearts to the glory of God and reminding souls about the general outlines of how to live the godly life.

Wa’Llahu wali al-tawfiq.

________________________

1. Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1995), 12:193.
2. Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah (Makkah: Dar ‘Alam al-Fawa’id, 1428H), 29, citing and agreeing with Ibn ‘Aqil.
3. Al-Raghib al-Asbahani, Kitab al-Dhari’ah ila Makrim al-Shari’ah (Cairo: Dar al-Salam, 2007), 84.
4. Abu Dawud, no.2608. Al-Nawawi declared its chain hasan in Riyadh al-Salihin (Riyadh: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 1421H), no.967.
5. Al-Qarafi, al-Furuq (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risalah, 2003), 1:426; the thirty-sixth distinction.
6. Al-Hakim, no.5925. Its chain is hasan, but is a mursal of Urwah. However, al-’Umri makes this point, al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah al-Sahihah (Madinah: Maktabah al-‘Ulum wa’l-Hikam, 1994), 2:360: ‘Although this narration is weak due to its being mursal, the principle of consultation is firmly established by the texts of the Qur’an and the events of the purified sirah. The Messenger, peace be upon him, would often consult his companions in matters for which there was no revelation, as found in the Qur’an and Sunnah, in order to train them to think about public issues, cultivate in them a sense of responsibility, fulfil the divine command of consultation, and to accustom the community to practicing it.’
7. Muslim, no.1731.
8. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ al-Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 10:383-4.
9. Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Istiqamah (Saudi Arabia: Jami‘at al-Imam Muhammad b Su‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1991), 1:31.
10. Al-Sa’di, Taysir al-Karim al-Rahman (Riyadh: Dar al-Salam, 2002), 205.
11. Al-Bukhari, no.59.
12. Ibn Majah, no.4108. It was graded sahih in al-Albani, Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’arif, 1997), no.3277.
13. Ibn  Qudamah, al-Mughni (Saudi Arabia: Dar al-‘Alam al-Kutub, 1999), 13:11.