1

Contents

Dedication

Vanguard

Preface

Relaxed and Neutral

The Quraysh Condition and the Concept of Obedience

Intellectuals and Scholars at a Loss

Chapter One

Questions Raised Before the Revolution

Reform before Revolution

The Price of Change v. the Price of No Change

Does History Repeat Itself?

On the Concept of Revolution

Revolution: In Search for the Causes

When Does a Revolution Occur?

Chapter Two

Revolution: the Question of Legitimacy

One: Is Islamic Political Thought in Need of Revision?

What is Islamic Legitimate Politics?

The Prophets government

The Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs

The Caliphate and Monarchy

Rules for Rulers

Two: Revolution and the Legitimacy of the Winner

Historical Change

Scholars and the Question of Need

Obedience and Consultation

2

Three: Is It the Role of the People or the Elite?

Whose right?

Four: Revolution and Strife

Five: Revolution: Peaceful or Violent?

Six: Who Is Behind the Revolution: a Party, a Conspiracy, or the Nation?

Mentality of the Masses

The Islamists

Behind the Curtains

The Arab Revolutions in Israeli Eyes

Chapter Three

After the Revolution.. Ambiguous Issues

One: Post-Revolution States and the Question of the Enforcement of Islamic Law

Status and Concepts

Self-Renewing Law

A Gradual Approach

Achieving the Purpose

Human Error

Subject to Discretion

Fundamentals and Details

Two: State Identity after the Revolution: Civil or Religious?

Three: The Democratic Solution and the Islamic Political System

Four: The Relation between Rulers and Citizens

Chapter Four

After the Revolution.. What Relation with Others?

One: The Islamists and Relation with non-Islamists

3

Two: The Islamists and the Relation with the West

Three: National Reconciliation and the Relation with Prominent Figures of Old Regimes

Sweeping the Past

General Pardon

A Share of the Gains

Fearing Revolutionary Conflicts

No Justification for Revenge

It Shall Not Be Said

Four: Revolution as a Prelude to Progress

Chapter Five

Worries after the Revolution.. Some Questions and Problems

One: Stolen Revolutions

Two: International Intervention

Three: Revolution and Sectarian Strife

Conclusion: What the Future Holds for the Revolution?

4

5

Dedication

To the souls of martyrs, residing in the green birds of heaven: they were alight when born

and alight when they left our world;

To the martyr who expects no commemoration on earth;

To the last person holding out with an open breast, nursing the dreams of departed

friends;

To justice on earth and in heaven.

6

Vanguard

There is no need to encourage a revolution, since revolution is normally beset with grave

danger. It inevitably occurs when serious and radical reform becomes impossible. There

are no advocates of revolution. Repression, injustice, corruption, backwardness and

poverty are the factors that motivate revolutions.

No one starts the preparations for revolution. It comes unplanned. It just starts all of a

sudden, when all means of reform are blocked, justice is stalled and repression rife.

Serious reform deserves sacrifice, which does not mean loss. It is indeed the best means

of struggle for the success of revolution.

7

Preface

Relaxed and Neutral

My approach does not touch any particular situation in any country, because I would like

my discussion to be unrestrained. I want to be unshackled by the constraints and

peculiarities of any local situation. Moreover, I do not want to face the consequences of

applying a general discourse to a particular case.

We need to be relaxed so as to establish a balanced concept of obedience and revolution

at the same time. It must not make either of them negative and unacceptable or a sublime

ideal to be sought after in all situations.

We must not adopt an accommodating approach that justifies existing practices as

though they are the foundation of the state, or considers a particular system of

government as ideal and incomparably better than all else.

Certain ideas derive their validity from being frequently repeated.

There are forums that focus on certain religious texts and unanimous verdicts, to the

exclusion of others, as fit their own preconceived ideas. Here is an example:

The Quraysh Condition and the Concept of Obedience

When you read a book of commentary on the Prophets Traditions, such as Sharh al-

Nawawi [ala Sahih Muslim or Fath al-Bari, you find under the topic of the Head of State

a statement such as:

[Iy[ad says: The condition that the Head of State must belong to the Quraysh is

agreed by all scholars. It is considered a question of unanimity. None of the early

scholars is known to have disagreed with this. The same applied to all later

scholars in all generations. He adds: The view of Al-Khawarij and the

Mu[tazilah is discounted, as it is contrary to what all Muslims are agreed upon.

Al-Nawawi says: The Caliphate belongs to the Quraysh. It is not permissible to

assign it to anyone who does not belong to it. This was unanimously agreed

during the generation of the Prophets companions as also in subsequent

generations. Whoever voices a different view, whether belonging to deviant sects

8

or others, is countered by the unanimity of the Prophets companions and their

successors.1

Al-Qurtub[i expresses a similar view. 2

The unanimity mentioned in these views is questionable. [Umar ibn al-Khattab, the

second Caliph, said: Had Salim, Abu Hudhayfahs ally, been alive, I would have made

him my successor.3

Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari:

Whoever confirms the unanimity on this question needs to provide an explanation

of what [Umar is quoted as saying. Ahmad quotes this statement by [Umar with

an authentic chain of transmission: If Abu [Ubaydah is alive when I am about to

die, I will make him my successor... He mentions this statement which also

includes: And if Abu [Ubaydah has predeceased me, I will make Mu[adh ibn

Jabal my successor... Mu[adh ibn Jabal belonged to the Ansar and had no

ancestors from the Quraysh. An explanation may be given on the lines that the

unanimity to make a condition that the Caliph must belong to t he Quraysh was

achieved after [Umar, or that [Umar changed his view at a later time.4

The Ansars attitude on the day when Abu Bakr was chosen as the Prophets successor

makes it clear that at least some of them had a different view. Indeed the condition of

ancestry appears to be applicable to a certain period of history when the Arabs were only

willing to accept the authority of the Quraysh. Substantive conditions, such as the

implementation of justice and consultative government are far more important.

The above-quoted statements by [Iyad, al-Nawawi and others are largely forgotten. They

are hardly ever quoted in a paper or a sermon. Had it been related to a question of

obeying rulers, some people would have never tired of quoting them so as to denounce

dissidents as being deviant, followers of al -Khawarij or al-Mu[tazilah and opposed to the

Muslim community. This is exactly what is being done with a different statement by al-

Nawawi: Rebelling against them and fighting them are forbidden according to the

unanimous verdict by Muslims. This is true even if [such rulers] are transgressors and

1 Vis. Sharh al-Nawawi [ala Sahih Muslim. Vol. 12, p. 200. Also, Tarh al-Tathrib, Vol. 8, p. 79. Also, Fath al-Bari, Vol.

13, p. 119. 2 Vis. Al-Mufhim, Vol. 4, pp.5-6. 3 Al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wal -Muluk, Vol. 4, p. 22. Also, Ibn [Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 58, pp. 404-405. A

similar view is quoted by Ibn Sa[d, Vol. 3, p. 317. Also by Ahmad, Al-Musnad, 130, and by [Umar ibn Shabbah,

Tarikh al-Madinah, Vol. 3, p. 922. If either one of two men is alive and I make him my successor, I wil l be confident

that he will be up to the task: Sal im, Abu Hudhayfahs ally or Abu [Ubaydah ibn al -Jarrah. 4 Vis. Fath al-Bari, Vol. 13, p. 119.

9

wrongdoers. Several Traditions by the Prophet confirm this. The Sunni scholars are

unanimous that a ruler may not be deposed on grounds of his being a transgressor...5

It should be noted, however, that a good number of scholars from the early generations

as also a number of other eminent scholars express a different view justifying rebellion

against a ruler who is clearly a transgressor or rules unjustly. Such views are quoted by

Ibn Hazm, al-Ghazali, al-Iji and others.6

When you carefully consider the two views that are claimed to be unanimous, you will

inevitably discover that some people publicize the second, presenting it as universally

accepted, while totally ignoring the first one. You may also find the reverse.

Neutrality in such matters eludes anyone who speaks or writes trying to impart legitimacy

to a particular situation, or defending it without paying due regard to considerations of

objectivity.

This is by no means peculiar to those who support rulers and governments. On the other

side you find people who consider revolution to be the standard by which to evaluate and

classify matters and actions. Some others reject everything that exists. This leads in most

cases to a pattern of either individual or collective dictatorship.

Many revolution supporters dream of a transformation that leads to the establishment of

the type of government they prefer. It may be a type that leads to social division and to

the spread of hatred, fanaticism, fear, doubt and suppression of peoples freedom. These

will inevitably lead to an atmosphere that paves the way to a counter revolution. In such a

situation we see selectivity, and selectivity is incompatible with both knowledge and God-

consciousness.

To arrive at a mature vision of questions related to Islamically acceptable poli tics, the

relation between people and rulers, revolution and democracy, we need a good measure

of psychological and intellectual relaxation and a similar measure of neutrality that rises

above personal, family and tribal interests. We must also guard against the pitfall of

applying a particular pattern to communities and soci eties that are fundamentally

different in culture, make-up as well as economic and social conditions.

Intellectuals and Scholars at a Loss

5 Vis. Sharh al-Nawawi [ala Sahih Muslim. Vol. 12, p. 229. 6 Vis. Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal f il-Milal wal-Nihal, Vol. 4, p. 84. Al-Iji, Al-Mawaqif , Vol. 8, pp.2-3, Radd al -Mukhtar, Vol. 4,

p. 264. Also, Vis, al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Vol. 6, p. 157.

10

After the Second World War Francois Furet wrote an article in which he discussed how

intellectuals found themselves at a loss after World War II. Likewise, after the Algerian

Revolution against the colonial power, Malik ibn Nabi wrote about the feeling of loss

Algerian intellectuals experienced after the revolution. As we go through the Arab Spring

of revolutions, there seems to be a state that we may call: Intellectuals loss after the

Arab revolutions. There seems to be a total loss as we try to identify a way out; a loss in

the re-structuring of concepts; a loss in establishing a revolutionary vision; a loss in

remoulding relations with allies, friends and enemies.

When people go through a period of loss, it is not surprising to have numerous

propositions, ideas and theses. It is a period when everyone feels his solution to be

faultless. People strongly advocate their own solutions. Yet in this period, every proposed

solution is beset by fear and hesitation.

In this rapidly changing Arab situation there is urgent need for the emergence of scholars

who combine penetrative vision with contemporary education, in addition to integrity

and moral discipline. States, communities and institutions need to come up with proper

and fair formulae, rather than try to gain power.

We need the scholar who deals with the religious texts more than the current situation,

just as we need the intellectual who deals with the current situation more than the

religious texts.

I am not giving a sermon in these pages. Nor do I claim that what I am writing is free of

personal judgement or uninfluenced by the current situation, whether positively or

negatively. I do not even suggest that what I am writing or quoting strictly conforms to

these conditions except in as much as it raises questions or starts a dialogue that

endeavours to be objective and steers away from bigotry and levelling accusations. If

those who are God-fearing experience a tempting thought from Satan, they bethink

themselves [of God]; and they begin to see things clearly. Their [evil] brethren try to draw

them into error with unceasing determination. (7: 201-202)

It is only fair that I should say that my role in writing this book has largely been to select,

adapt or quote what I feel to be right of other peoples writings. I have read a large

number of books and far more articles. My role has largely been to take from here and to

add there so that I could come up with this work.

This is a humble effort, which I find strenuous after I have been away from research for a

long time. Yet it is less than what the reader expects. I have concentrated on ideas more

than proper organization and the flow of information. The time was too pressing to

address both aspects together. I hope that I can achieve that in a later edition.

11

I wish to express my gratitude to the Nama Centre for having encouraged me to

concentrate over several months on reading religious and political works, many of which

are in Arabic while others are translated, in order to prepare this work.

12

Chapter One

Questions Raised Before the Revolution

13

One

Reform before Revolution

The best option for any society is to set in place a process for change so as to meet the

ever-changing needs of its people. Many states have put in place ways and mechanisms to

gauge the feelings of society and determine how best to respond to them. Thus, what

people feel and what they discuss in private accurately reflect what should take place.

Centres of studies and research undertake this task in the developed countries and give

advice and recommendations to decision makers. They draw graphs; undertake surveys

and study statistics to gauge peoples concerns, visions, aspirations, preferences and

needs. Thus they help to make policies reflect peoples concerns, and ensure that policies

are modified as peoples concerns develop and change. Government po licies need to be

close to what people feel. Only in this way, society remains fresh and comfortable as the

early hours at dawn. Otherwise, it will feel suffocated as time passes with people feeling

deprived, unable to achieve justice or to claim their rights. The result would be an

explosion that comes totally unexpectedly to decision makers who do not try to

understand peoples feelings or respond to their health, psychological and political needs.

Karl Marx predicted that the main capitalist powers, such as Britain and Germany, would

be the ones where revolution would occur, because their affluent societies have their

deprived classes. This, however, did not take place. Instead, revolution occurred in

poorer countries, such as Russia and China. The reason was that the ruling classes in

Europe were quick to recognize the danger presented by the Communist theory.

Therefore, they promulgated laws that gave benefits and rights to the working classes and

the deprived, such as paid holidays and other privilege s. Moreover, they guaranteed

freedom of speech. These measures were successful in averting revolution which,

otherwise, would have been inevitable.

Dictatorial regimes, on the other hand, often find it difficult to deal rationally with

changing situations. Some people in high positions in such regimes fear for their

interests. Such regimes dread that reform might lead to their demise. Their philosophy is

that reform means concession and that the first step along that way is the most serious.

They argue that once you take one step down the ladder, you will ultimately find yourself

at the bottom.

14

The best option is to take the opportunity and use the time, which may often be injury

time, in order to achieve the desired result. This must not be in the form o f giving small

bribes to people, reducing their economic and social plight by wage increase, providing

easy loans, subsidizing some basic items and punishing some aspects of corruption by

making some junior officials scapegoats. What should be done is to put in place some

serious and brave reforms to prevent social implosion. These measures start with the

relaxation of state security measures and the abandonment of monopolizing wealth and

political power. They must also ensure peoples rights and freedoms, particularly political

freedom and the freedom of expression.

Perhaps most people have given up on existing regimes, believing that they will not

change after having been in a state of stagnation for many years. It is important,

nevertheless, to remember that the most urgent and useful option for Arab regimes, in

order to sort out the present crises is to be more open with people. They must offer

serious and brave concessions in the areas of the rights of citizenship, justice and rule of

law. They must also restructure the relationship between rulers and citizens so as to put

an end to repression and futile slogans and to endeavour to win peoples acceptance

through guaranteeing their freedom and decent standards of living.

Al-Jarrah ibn [Abdullah, the Governor of Khurasan, wrote to the Caliph, [Umar ibn

[Abd al-[Aziz: Peace be to you. The people of Khurasan have become corrupt. The

only remedy to reform them is to use the whip and the sword. If the Caliph permits me, I

will apply this remedy. The Caliphs reply was as follows: I am in receipt of your letter

in which you state that the people of Khurasan have become corrupt and that the use of

the whip and the sword is the only remedy for them. You ask my permission to use these.

Your statement is false. The remedy to bring them back to order is the proper

administration of justice and giving everyone their rights. Therefore, apply this to them. 7

An essential preliminary step is to accept pluralism and diversity. A well balanced social

contract is needed to reconcile opposing trends and guarantee equal opportunity for all to

participate in the political field and in running the country. This social contract is between

two parties who agree by mutual consent (4: 29) to fulfil commitments and obligations:

Be true to your contracts (5: 1). The two parties are politicians and people , while the

purpose is to ensure the fulfilment of rights and the protection of freedoms and security.

It should be understood that security does not mean the security of a small group of

people who monopolize decision making in all political, financial and administrative

spheres.

7 Vis, al-Khatib, Al-Muttaf iq wal-Muftariq, Vol. 3, p. 1731. Also, Ibn [Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 72, p. 59.

15

It is under the banner of security that the security and safety of entire nations are

violated, as are their freedom, rights and lives. By contrast, revolutionary enthusiasm may

postpone or ignore the question of security, particularly in the most important period of

rebuilding the state and the society based on justice.

The peoples of Arab countries that have witnessed revolutions say: Any future situation

is better than the ones they overthrew. Decades of flowery slogans have given us nothing

other than defeats, regression and increased of backwardness, corruption, repression and

poverty.

We say that change, in any shape and by any means, is a risk that deserves to be taken in

order to rid ourselves of a long period of awful stagnation. It opens up a new state of

affairs that achieves, perhaps most importantly, self determination for people so that they

can shape their future by themselves, without any imposition or exclusion.

Many people raise doubts based on the history of different revolutions. This is due to the

fact that they belong, in some way, to the current status, or benefit by it. Alternatively,

they may despair of any change: they realize that the current situation is very low, but

they see nothing beyond it other than a precipice. In either case, these people are

ultimately among the victims of the current situation.

Others may raise doubts from a different angle, looking only at a balance sheet of profits

and losses. They feel that temporary release does not justify the heavy price that is bound

to include loss of life, destruction of property and spreading hatred.

The Price of Change v. the Price of No Change

Achieving serious reform that respects people and treats them well remains the best

option, wherever possible. Other peoples experience confirms that this is possible. In

Canada, for example, a democratic system was achieved without going through wars or

revolutions.

Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence who look at the objectives and purposes of legislation

always attach due importance to the overall objectives of guaranteeing peoples rights,

protecting their freedoms, ensuring justice, preventing corruption and improving living

conditions. When these objectives are achieved at minimum cost and least losses, then

that is what Islam prefers. Its spirit and general principles support that.

Some governments believe that they are well stable and immune to change. They cite in

evidence the fact that their regimes have been in existence for many decades. This,

however, is no better than an elderly person suggesting that attaining to old age proves

16

that he will not die. Yet old age is the only stage of human life that can be extended

through proper health and psychological care.

Two

Does History Repeat Itself?

Revolution in the Muslim world has a very long history, starting with the rebellion against

[Uthman, the third Caliph, then the one led by al-Husayn, the Prophets grandson, and

the rebellion by the people of Madinah which witnessed the Battle of al -Harrah. Then the

Scholars Revolution took place under the command of [Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Ash[ath,

leading to the Battle of Dayr al-Jamajim. All these took place in the first century of Islam.

Al-Khawarij staged several rebellions. The Abbasid Caliphate foug ht many rebellions

such as that led by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, known as al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah, and his

brother Ibrahim, Musa al-Kazims revolt, and the Zaydi revolt at al-Raqqah. Revolts

against the Memluks and the Ottomans were also very frequent. The best known of these

was the revolt led by the scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt. However, the Abbasid revolution

is perhaps the only one that succeeded in establishing a vast state that survived for several

centuries. Islamic history also witnessed other rebellions and revolts by scholars both in

the East and in the Andalus.

On the world stage there were revolutions that re-shaped societies and introduced

fundamental change in the political and economic fields. They even changed the course

of history in Eastern and Western Europe and in the Americas.

In the eighteenth century, the French monarchy could not adapt itself to the changes

taking place in society. As a result, several factors combined to lead to the French

Revolution in 1789. Its consequences continued for many years, leading to a social,

economic and political crisis. It took the French 80 years to achieve a truly democratic

system. Ten years after the revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, a 29 year old army officer

seized power and ruled France until his defeat at Waterloo.

Twenty-six years after the revolution, the French royal family was back in power, so as to

make the loss of life by hundreds of thousands of people were not guillotined or died in

war appear all in vain. In 1830 a new revolt took place to replace one tyrant with another

who tried to obliterate all that was achieved by the revolution. In 1848, the French people

revolted again, putting up barricades in the streets. Hundreds of people lost their lives in

a hard struggle between the people who were determined to remove tyranny, whatever

17

the sacrifice, and the ruling elite who relied on support by the aristocracy and others in

influential positions.

The masses were happy when the Second Republic was declared, thinking that they have

done away with tyranny. However, the new president, Louis Napoleon, followed the

same line as his uncle and monopolized power. Weary and exhausted, the people

succumbed. However, his defeat by Prussia in 1870 led to a new revolt. The Third

Republic was thus ushered in and things stabilized. One result of this was the declaration

of human rights, including the right of all people to liberty, justice and security.

Europe witnessed revolutionary action in most countries. Some of these revolts led to the

promulgation of democratic constitutions that defined the relationship between the

people and their rulers. Indeed, European history is full of revolutions and counter

revolution. However, counter revolutions that sought to re-establish the old regimes,

with their royal and clerical orders, were largely unsuccessful.

What is strange is that Fascist and Nazist uprisings took place in some of the most

civilized European countries, with the result that a democratic system gave rise to a

totalitarian tyranny. The problem was that the democratic pattern did not lay down

checks that would prevent tyranny. Therefore, some intellectuals and philosophers, like

Karl Buber, argued in an article on lessons learnt from the twentieth century that the

most fundamental principle of democracy is to formulate a system that precludes all types

of individual, party, family or sectarian dictatorship.

Eastern European countries managed to oust their dictatorial regimes which were in

power for more than a century.

According to research centres, our world is witnessing a steady increase in democratic

regimes and increased pressures on repressive and dictatorial ones.

18

Three

On the Concept of Revolution

Revolutionary spirit may mean a call for renewal and self criticism, in the hope of

progressing to a better situation. Within this framework, revolution becomes continuous

evolution and a dialectic relation that aims to change things to the better.

From this perspective, we may speak about a broad concept of revolution that starts with

accepted facts, but without having to submit to them. The world has thus experienced

the Industrial Revolution, the revolution of knowledge, the electronic revolution, the

genetic revolution, the communications revolution, etc. These have introduced radical

changes into well established concepts and opened the way to unprecedented

achievements that have served man.

In this light, revolution means to review and develop what exists, and to build over it. It

does not mean the mere destruction of the existing situation. Continuous paradigm

development thus becomes a revolutionary spirit that societies are well advised to uphold.

The same applies to the social and cultural paradigms. This is the opposite of sticking to

tradition and submitting to what exists, believing that it could not be improved. Indeed, it

is possible to build on any situation and make it better.

Factors of weakness and deterioration creep into every human situation. To be alert to

such factors and resist them reflects a determination to survive and maintain legitimacy.

This applies to individuals and nations alike.

Revolution calls the existing situation into question, trying to sort it out, and to rebuild

over it, using either new or existing bricks. Scholars and researchers differ as to its

specific concept. Raymond Williams wrote a book, The Long Revolution, on this subject,

tracing the Latin roots of the word which connote a rolling movement. In this context,

rolling means a change over that brings what is on top to the bottom and what is at the

bottom to the top. In this context we may cite the Quranic verse that says: Such days

[of fortune and misfortune], We deal out in turn among men. (3: 140) Williams says that

revolution started as a concept that turns the ruled into rulers. This is exactly what

Ahmad Shawqi, a famous Egyptian poet of the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries, expresses as he addresses a dictator calling him Pharaoh. He says: The age of

individual tyranny has gone, as has the state ruled by elite classes. Rulers everywhere now

defer to the rule of the people. The linguistic meaning reflects a noble concept. It recalls

19

a system of values that seeks a fruitful marriage between modernity and renewal on the

one hand and integrity and preservation on the other. The fruits of such a marriage

inspire creativity.

Within this context, revolution is different from wars of independence. The latter often

mean that the colonial system remains but brings into power national figures. Revolut ion

seeks to transform the regime so as to make it national. Revolution is also different from

a military coup that is normally staged by a small group of officers who may raise some

revolutionary slogans, but then lay their hands on everything. In most cases, a military

coup leads to a small section of people monopolizing all affairs. In essence, a revolution

is an expression of general fury. It differs from an uprising or a popular movement that

has limited objectives. However, an uprising may develop into a revolution, depending on

the political reaction and the response of the general public.

Specifically speaking, revolution is a social phenomenon that aims to change the political

system through general social action. Certain public figures are in the forefront of such a

radical change, but the whole society, not a small political section or a party, participates

in enforcing such a change. Reform calls to a return to the fundamental principles in an

attempt to rectify malpractices. By contrast, revolution attempts to change the whole

system in order to replace it with a new one.

Revolution is a leap, not a gradual change. It is the product of accumulated dissatisfaction

over a long period. It seeks to end an earlier experience that has failed to introduce any

measure of reform and change that satisfies peoples aspirations. De Tocqueville, a

famous French historian, is of the view that stalled or ineffective programmes of reform

constitute one of the most serious causes of revolution. This is due to the fact that the

population would have recognized the importance of reform and the need for it . They

are aware of the urgency to put it into effect. Therefore, inaction or slow response adds

to their frustration so as to make them despair of any positive outcome from such stalled

programmes. De Tocqueville arrived at this conclusion after having st udied a number of

revolutions.

Revolution is an attempt to bypass the great gulf between the rulers and the ruled. It,

therefore, seeks to achieve equality between the ruled on the one hand, and between

them and the rulers on the other, through the reinstatement of the social contract. A

contract presupposes the equality of the two parties to it, and that they are both subject

to the law of universal justice that makes no exceptions. Revolution is sometimes a way

of protest against the gulf between what exists in practice and the presumed state of law

and order.

20

It is not always that revolution involves killings and bloodshed, although many

revolutions go close to that. Indeed, revolution is essentially a peaceful action. However,

it may be met with much violence. A stage is then reached when those in the thick of

revolution find it necessary to defend themselves. In such a case, the revolution becomes

accompanied by armed rebellion. However, a revolution maintains this status as long as

such armed rebellion remains limited to self defence and does not lead to internal fighting

or a civil war that targets civilians.

History speaks of what is known as coloured revolutions, which are acts of civil

disobedience that aim to enforce certain demands by peace ful means. They may adopt an

emblem with a particular colour, and normally end without bloodshed. In this category

the revolutions of Yugoslavia, Georgia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Tibet and the green

revolution of Iran are placed.

The police and the army play an important role in the success and peacefulness of a

revolution. We often see people in the revolution giving roses to army and police

personnel, and hugging them. This is the reason why the Tunisian revolution was called

the Jasmine revolution. It was totally different from the Libyan revolution which had to

become militarized due to the heavy shelling of the rebels by the Gaddafi brigades.

Revolution does not seek to be militarized. However, repressive regimes try to defend

themselves using military force, destroying everything and turning cities into living hell.

This makes fighting inevitable.

21

Four

Revolution: In Search for the Causes

People do not like revolution, just as they do not like war. However, dissatisfaction may

considerably exhaust their tolerance so as to bring them close to a flashing point. Their

closeness to it may be a vital factor in the break out of revolution.

A wise government will always be aware of the nations mood. When it feels

dissatisfaction growing into a social fever, it will offer palliatives, but will seriously look

for solutions through real reform that ensures security and guarantees a safer future.

Safeguarding the country and preventing revolution are achievable only through the

proper administration of justice, guaranteeing peoples rights and freedoms, allowing free

expression and political participation by all, even in a gradual process. When the nation

sees real hope of the fulfilment of its aspirations, it will most probably try to support

reform and safeguard the gains it aims to bring about.

A slap on someones face by a policeman, or an attitude by some official may start an

unpredictable series of events. Sometimes, the masses act like a huge dinosaur, in a

collective spirit that may be new, strange and totally unexpected. The most serious case

of revolution is a sudden, unexpected explosion that shatters all values and constraints.

Internal and external forces feel that it represents the present and the future. They try to

deal with it in this way in order to safeguard their future position. This is what happened

in the recent Arab revolutions.

Some people believe that revolution is a sudden, uncontrolled change. This is a rather

flawed view. All revolutions that produced fundamental change were preceded by clear

signals and indications. Revolution is the result of a host of flaws, problems, lack of will

and repression by an ageing regime. Such a state of affairs is contrasted with vitality,

action, determination and clear vision by the people.

Sometimes, people draw a clear vision of the future. This may help to keep their thinking

on the right track and make them aware of how transformation works and change is

accomplished. Samuel Huntington, the author of Clash of Civilizations, believes that

revolutions are historically linked to the need to modernize. De Tocqueville, on the other

hand, notes that revolution occurs as a result of ineffective modernization programmes

or reluctant measures of reform coupled with much repression.

To my mind, the most important causes of revolution are:

22

1. The divine law of change and the occurrence of defects and weakness.

Prophet Muhammad says: It is a divine law that whatever rises high in this world

shall come down.8 This is coupled with the need for renewal, fresh blood and

vigorous spirit. Some ailing situations accurately reflect the Quranic verse: When

God wills people to suffer some misfortune, none can avert it. Besides Him, they

have none to protect them. (13: 11) This verse occurs in the Surah [i.e. Quranic

chapter] entitled Thunder, which focuses on change. The same message is given in

the verse that says: When [the end of] their term approaches, they can neither

delay nor hasten it by a single moment. (7: 34) Boredom is enough to change the

mood of many people. Hence, change is a natural requirement. Referring to the

Children of Israel, the Qur'an says: And [remember] when you said: Moses! We

can no longer put up with one kind of food. (2: 61) Time and apathy will only

increase the effect of the factors of weakness, making the need to change even

more acute.

2. The absence of a joint programme approved by the government and the

people. In the absence of a well defined aim agreed upon by the nation, people go

their divergent ways. The national dimension becomes a personal dimension, and

people have diverse interests. Thus, instead of a gain for all, the gain of some

means a loss for others.

3. Backwardness, poverty, miserable conditions, injustice and dictatorship.

The environment that leads to revolution is one of cumulative anger caused by the

spread of corruption, unemployment, poverty, lack of social and human security,

miserable daily life conditions, social and political deprivation, insults, lack of

freedoms, ill-treatment of people by the security forces, and the humiliation felt by

ordinary people when they deal with government officials.

Ibn Khaldun says: Do not think that injustice means only taking someones

money or property, giving nothing in return, as many people think. Injustice is

much wider than that. Whoever takes someone elses property, oppresses him at

work, demands from him or imposes on him something unsanctioned by the

divine law, is guilty of injustice. Those who unjustifiably take peoples money are

unjust, as are those who forcibly take it away or plunder it. Those who deny

people their rights are unjust, as are those who confiscate peoples property. The

evil of all this will ultimately rebound to the state and it will decline and fall. 9

8 Related by al-Bukhari, number 2872. 9 Vis. Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah, (Arabic edition) pp. 35-356.

23

Peoples anger is at the core of rebellion. Hence, most revolutions are

characterised by anger and the lack of clear objectives. The people in revolt are

fully aware of the conditions they want to eradicate, but in most cases they do not

know what they want in their place. They raise general slogans, but the road to

achieve these is unclear. In one of his interviews after the Arab revolutions, Henry

Kissinger said that the angry protesters know well enough how to meet together,

but when the existing regime falls, they do not know what to offer in its place.

Although his analysis is neither accurate nor universal, it gives a clear signal to the

angry protesters in the Arab world, telling them to clearly define their objectives.

4. All powers concentrated in one hand. This leads to the spread of corruption

that soon gets out of control. Some contemporary regimes reflect what H arun al-

Rashid, the Abbasid Caliph, is reported to have said to a cloud: Let your rain fall

wherever you wish; I will still receive my taxes for what you produce.10 This

means that all threads end up at the same point, and all roads lead to Rome, as the

saying goes.

5. Peoples hopes and aspirations. Such new hopes and aspirations are the result

of renewed awareness of what they can achieve as they compare themselves to

other nations. They discover greater potentials that their governments could have

realized.

Our modern world has introduced new means of instant communications with

sound, vision and information. It has thus reduced barriers between nations and

provided ways of comparison. With the new communications networks, the old

political barriers and borders are brought down. People are able to look at other

societies that are free and able to grow and prosper. They compare such situations

to their own, which is full of injustice and corruption, despite the fact that they

have the elements and factors necessary for progress and advancement.

The increased awareness of human rights and their concepts as well as the wider

scope of knowledge and education have enabled man to acquire a different

mentality to that of the age of ignorance and lack of awareness.

Shaikh Muhammad [Abdu refers to this when he says that it is the middle and

lower classes that rebel against dictatorship when proper and useful education is

extended to them as they come to acquire a public opinion. It has never occurred

anywhere in the world that the upper classes, the rich and those in power advocate

10 Vis. Taaththur al-Inafah f i Ma[alim al-Khlafah, Vol. 1, p. 194.

24

equality with the rest of the population, relinquishing their own privileges and

ending their monopoly of power and public offices so as to make these available

to the rest of society. 11

6. Availability of means of communication, mutual influence and emulation

of others. Some people describe revolution as a type of fever which has its early

signs and indications. It can be diagnosed only by a competent doctor. It is

sometimes accompanied by delirium, and the patient may suffer one relapse or

more, and may acquire immunity for a while. New technologies, satellite channels,

the new media, such as Facebook and Twitter, provide a suitable environment in

which the deprived classes can meet and discover their importance and the

resources available to them, which are simple and great at the same time.

7. Negation of Identity. We may recall that Bourguiba, the former Tunisian

President, used to look with contempt at Islam and its values, as well as Arabism.

He was succeeded by Ben Ali who targeted the Islamic identity by his repressive

policies and democratic slogans. The author of The Tunisian Identity, Islam, Arabism

mentions that Tunisia could acquire a Francophone, Mediterranean, African or

even a Roman or old Carthage identity, but it must never have an Arab Islamic

identity.

8. The availability of a model to be copied. In most cases, it is the democratic

system that is available in most countries. It is a system that can be developed so

as to adapt itself to the special circumstances of every country.

9. Breaking through the barrier of fear with readiness to sacrifice. This takes

place gradually and then escalates.12 Some people imagine that the only way to rule

is by enforcing a strong system based on security forces. They further think that

the relaxation of repression leads to collapse. A dictator may imagine that his

people are a special case. But this is incorrect. His people can by no means be

more backward than the Europeans of the Middle Ages who ultimately revolted

and were able to gain their rights.

10. Available Opportunity. This may be in the form of rivalry or competition

between different sectors of the ruling classes, with some of them trying to gain

advantage over others. When this takes place, they may compete for popularity,

with some of them exposing the repressive practices others commit. It is a case of

a dispute between thieves leading to the discovery of the stolen goods.

11 Muhammad [Abdu, Complete Works, Vol. 1, p. 341. 12 Vis. From Dictatorship to Democracy .

25

Failure to cope with internal disasters may provide an opportunity as it exposes

the lack of preparedness or the inability to handle the crisis. Other situations that

provide an opportunity are military defeats, government indiscipline and inability

to monitor details. All these may bring about a new situation that provides an

opportunity for social action, or a confused situation that leaves analysts unable to

judge accurately.

The relaxation of stringent security and administrative measures is the inevitable

outcome of changes taking place. It may lead to an intermediary situation that

gives analysts a new insight into the new mood of the population.

26

Five

When Does a Revolution Occur?

Generalization after a single case can be faulty. It certainly does not provide a reliable rule

to be applied in other cases. Strangely enough, no one could accurately predict the Arab

revolutions, even after their early signs appeared. Egypt said: We are not Tunisia. Libya

echoed that, and words with similar effects were used by Syrian and Yemeni politicians. It

also appears that no one expects the same scenario in his own country.

What is amazing is that the situation may improve, but the feeling of injustice becomes

more acute because of increased awareness and greater demands. Thus, any concessions

given by the government are considered to be responding to earlier demands that have

become obsolete.

However, there comes what we may term the critical moment which represents a

divorce from the present situation so as to deal with it in a totally different way. It

appears that predicting this critical moment is uneasy. Should a number of the

aforementioned causes combine, the possibility of a revolution breaking out becomes

greater.

The law of history is subtle and rather unclear. It is unlike the laws of physics. Revolution

is like a fruit which could experience anyone of several possibilities: it may dry up, or be

picked before it has ripened. On the other hand, it may ripen first and be picked on time,

or else be left and then be picked much later when its quality has deteriorated. These

possibilities indicate awareness of the situation and its requirements with a proper

response to each requirement or neglecting them altogether.

Major events of the last century opened many windows for the Arabs. These included the

collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate; the liberation from colonialism; the collapse of the

Soviet Union; political cooperation with the United States; military cooperation with the

US in the war on terror and giving her a green light to intervene in the region. Yet all

these windows did not encourage democratic change in the Arab world. They were

exploited by dictatorial groups and inward looking ideologies.

The desire for participation and political action by the masses was not merely weak in the

1950s and 1960s; it was also confused. The masses just accepted the dogma laid down by

the inspired leader who spoke about the decadence of pluralism and party pol itics and

27

drummed up the benefits of one voice, one party and one leader. Added to this was the

confusion of peculiarity and repression, justice and arbitrary rule, within the totalitarian

system of the Eastern Block where no discussion of human rights was allowed. It was

considered interference in internal affairs.

The failure of nationalist projects and the defeat of nationalist policies meant the failure

of an entire generation and the collapse of its dreams. It could do nothing other than

nursing its wounds, without finding any alternative.

28

Chapter Two

Revolution: the Question of Legitimacy

29

One

Is Islamic Political Thought in Need of Revision?

What is Islamic Legitimate Politics?

We often hear the term, al-Siyasah al-Shar[iyyah, which we have translated as Islamic

legitimate politics. However, the term is not clearly understood and has no clear

definition. Although the concept it points to is very serious and important in any civilized

structure, it is often overlooked by those concerned with Islamic scholarship. This is due

to two reasons: preoccupation with matters of detail and fear of delving into a matter that

concerns the ruler further than what the ruler approves.

A number of scholars describe politics as deputizing for the Legislator.13 This is stated

by Ibn Khaldun.14 Al-Mawardi expresses it as deputizing for the Prophet.15 Both

statements are confusing because they place politics in the area of what is sacred.

In his encyclopaedic work, Al-Funun, Ibn [Aqil, an eminent Hanbali scholar, records a

debate he had with a scholar from the Shafi[i school of thought. The latter said that the

only acceptable politics is that which is in agreement with the divine law. Ibn [Aqil said in

reply: Politics include such actions as will help people to be closer to goodness and away

from corruption, even though such actions are not included in the legislation Gods

messenger had promulgated or in Islamic divine revelations. If by saying the only

acceptable politics is that which is in agreement with divine law you mean that it is not in

conflict with what divine law states, then you are right. If, on the other hand, you mean

that the only acceptable politics is what divine law states, then this is wrong. It also puts

the Prophets companions in the wrong. Ibn al-Qayyim records this in his book, I[lam al-

Muwaqq[in, and other works. 16

According to Ibn [Aqil, the essence of politics is the sort of action that is judged on the

basis of its usefulness through experiment and peoples experience, even though it may

not be mentioned in Islamic law, provided that it does not clash with any religious text.

We do not need religious text to determine, for example, the usefulness of working

13 In Islamic terminology, the Legislator is God. Editors note. 14 Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah, (Arabic edition) p. 272. 15 Al-Maward i, Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah, p. 15 & 254. 16 Vis. Ibn al-Qayyim, I[lam al -Muwaqq[in, Vol. 4, p. 283; Al-Turuq al-[Hukmiyyah, p. 12; Badai[ al-Fawaid, Vol. 3, p.

152.

30

through institutions, or implementing administrative patterns, or effecting change. It is

enough that such matters are not in conflict with any religious text.

Again according to Ibn [Aqil, we may consider Islamic legitimate politics on the basis of

the fulfilment of two objectives: Firstly, implementing such religious orders and texts that

are within the jurisdiction of the ruler, whether they apply to individuals or to the

community as a whole, such as the system of inheritance. Secondly, commitment to the

universally agreed essential values and standards, such as justice, freedom, guaranteeing of

rights, and life preservation. Included into this is what is termed the preservation of the

five essentials and what is added to them such as guaranteeing human dignity and

safeguarding the human community.

To put it another way, Islamic legitimate politics is: 1) implementation of the religious

text, wherever a definitive text occurs, and 2) ijtihad, or scholarly discretion to achieve the

interests of the people in the areas to which no religious text applies. Public interest is

influenced by the existing circumstances. It abides by the prevailing local and

international traditions, but it draws on the historical experience of the community and

its highest values.

The academic debate in history and at present about the legitimate politics, benefit and

harm is certainly important, but it does not produce a complete theory. Nor does it meet

the present practical needs. It mostly concentrates on trying to win the debate and to

show that the other party is on shallow grounds.

The Prophets Government

Prior to Islam, the Arabs in Makkah and the whole of the Arabian Peninsula did not have

any form of government. The system established by the Prophet was the first real

government they ever had. One of the tasks assigned to the Prophet was that of the ruler,

which included choosing army commanders, financial administration, entering into peace

agreements, enforcing the punishment of criminals, corresponding with other heads of

state, receiving foreign delegations, etc. Books documenting his life and books of Hadith

are full of such matters. Hence, the question of government and succession was never

raised during his lifetime. His companions only asked him who would be the ruler after

him.

When offered a choice between being a messenger and servant of God and being a king

and a messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) chose the first so as

to free himself of the burden of kingship and its consequences. He also made it clear to

his provincial governors that they must not resort to dictatorship. They should rather

abide by Gods instructions, such as: You are not one to use coercion with them. (50:

31

45) You are not their overseer. (88: 22) Qatadah, an early scholar, says: God Almighty

dislikes coercion. He has prohibited it and explained its nature.17 This is contrary to

what Ali Abd al-Raziq maintains in his book, Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, saying that there

is no religious foundation for the Caliphate system.

It is true that the terms state and politics were not in use in that period. However, the

Qur'an gives a clear order to rule in accordance with Gods revelations. This applies to

questions and issues to which religious texts apply. The Qur'an also establishes general

principles such as obedience according to what is generally accepted as reaso nable, the

administration of justice to all, honesty, responsibility, ihsan or doing things well, and

consultation. It also forbids injustice, unfair dealings, aggression and dictatorship. The

Quranic address on political matters is not detailed as it is the case with matters of

worship and faith. Its address is oriented to objectives, taking into consideration the ever

changing circumstances in time and place. Therefore, the standard to be applied in

implementing Islamic legitimate politics, referring always to Gods revelations, is to put

those general principles into effect.

The details, measures and patterns are left for people to determine in accordance with

their circumstances and what suits them. These differ from one community to another

and from one generation to another. They are subject to discretion which will inevitably

vary.

We do not find in the Qur'an or the Prophets Traditions many details about the nature

of Islamic government and how it should be handed over, nor about the relationship

between ruler and subjects. The same is the case of questions of medicine, commerce or

administration. Such fields are covered by the principle stated by the Prophet: You

know your world better.18

Buraydah, a companion of the Prophet who commanded an expedition, reported the

instructions given to him by the Prophet: If you besiege a fort and its people request

you to give them a pledge by God and His Prophet, do not do that, but give them a

pledge by your honour and the honour of your companions. It is a lesser sin that you

violate your own pledges than to violate a pledge by God and His Prophet. Likewise, if

you besiege a fort and its people request you to apply Gods judgement to them, do not

do that, but apply to them your own judgement. You do not know whether you can

determine Gods judgement of their case.19

17 Al-Tabari, A[hkam al-Bayan, Vol. 21, p.477.

18 Related by Muslim, number 2363. 19 Related by Muslim, number 1731.

32

This hadith defines the general areas of legitimate politics that serve the interests of the

Muslim community but cannot be attributed to God and may not be discussed or

determined in the name of Islam. An error in determining the interests of the community

may lead to a distortion of Islam and its principles. Political relations and administration

should be attributed to the people running them and those who lay them down. They

may not be attributed to Islam. The same applies to treaties and covenants. These should

be based on the principles of justice and human relations. They may not be made as

pledges given by God and His messenger, because violating them in this case means

violating Gods own pledges and those of His messenger.

The hadith also establishes the area of peoples judgement and its status in Islamic law.

The leader or commander enforces his own judgement and that of his companions to

other people, informing them that should any error occurs, it is his own fault, as he is the

one who determines the judgement according to his own discretion. Therefore, it is

Islamic in as much as it serves the objectives of Islamic law and is in accordance with

Islamic principles. The Prophets statement is of special importance to those who work in

the Islamic field. They must make clear that their views are based on their own scholarly

discretion, i.e. ijtihad. They cannot attribute their human discretion to Islam itself. Where

scholarly discretion applies, the one who has greater knowledge and experience takes a

lead. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that legitimate politics is determined on the basis of the

more useful and suitable for implementation and administration. It does not rely on who

is more God-fearing or more religious. 20

In dealing with other towns and tribes, the Prophet generally approved their practices,

considering that it was enough that they had adopted Islam. He only sent officials to

collect their zakat and sent people to educate them. His was akin to decentralized

government that ensured obedience and commitment and allowed advocates of Islam to

do their work. At the same time, it allowed every area or tribe to retain its own character,

introducing no amendment, except where the practice is fundamentally wrong.

Modern states assign responsibility for every individual to the state, from birth to death,

including all details, secrets and personal affairs. The state is also responsible for the

collective areas, such as transport, residential policy, employment, travel, economy and

relations with others. By contrast, the pattern that was applied at the time of the Prophet

in the area of the relation between the ruler and individuals focused on the collection of

zakat, organization of jihad and similar areas. A person may go through his entire life

without knowing the ruler or being known to the ruler.

20 Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Siy[asah al-Shar[iyyah, pp. 15-19.

33

It may be difficult for people to understand the difference between the concept of

government at the time and our contemporary situation where we have close interaction

in the areas of politics, economics, information and development.

The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs

The first difference of opinion among the Prophets companions was that which

occurred in the meeting at the Saqifah. The meeting, however, ended with a unanimous

agreement to choose Abu Bakr as the Prophets successor. Another disagreement took

place after [Umar was killed. The disagreement was all in public. It was not kept in closed

rooms.

Then discord, i.e. the Fitnah, took place, but the antagonists did not manipulate religion

to serve their interests in the fight. They only spoke about rights, legitimacy and

discretion. This means that the dispute was political. The Fitnah at the end of [Uthmans

reign was closely connected with social change and the long duration of the Caliphs

reign. This frequently happens. However, its most striking aspect was [Uthmans

determination to be the victim, refusing to let the situation develop into civil war or to

allow bloodshed in the capital of the Muslim state. This is exactly the opposite of what

we are witnessing these days and what took place in history where the loud outcry is:

either I rule or the country will be in ruin.

Perhaps the most important issue was the choice of the Caliph, as well as the transfer of

power and the general framework in which this took place. In each of the four cycles, the

process relied on the choice made by the Muslim community. Although Abu Bakr was

given special approval in several statements by the Prophet, people differed about him in

the Saqifah meeting, which some scholars describe as the first parliament in Islamic

history. Yet eventually they agreed to appoint him. He only nominated [Umar to succeed

him after having consulted the people and gauged their views. [Umar in turn appointed a

consultative committee to choose his successor. They undertook a comprehensive

process of consultation, seeking the views of everyone including young women. They

ultimately narrowed the choice, nominating either [Uthman or [Ali. When [Uthman was

assassinated, [Ali was chosen to succeed him.

We may say here that the Shias view on the choice of the Imam removes it from the

human area and the right of citizens to participate in that choice. It makes it a choice by

God. Thus, the whole issue is removed from the area of legitimate politics that are not

subject to definitive religious texts and fundamental Islamic principles. It is placed instead

in the area of beliefs and faith.

34

To limit the ways by which power is transferred to the four patterns that took place at

that time cannot be supported by any evidence. The fact that they took place means that

they are permissible, but does not exclude other patterns and systems. A certain pattern

may be suitable in a particular social environment. When that environment undergoes

educational, technological or geographic change, it may require different patterns. Indeed

it is most remarkable that Gods will left the process of choosing or nominating the

Caliph in the early period of Islam undefined in any detailed measure. In his infinite

wisdom, God left their methods of choice to be based on the principles of justice, ihsan

[i.e. doing things well], right and consultation as they interacted in that period of history.

[Abdullah ibn [Umar gives this highly significant report: I attended my father when he

was stabbed. People commended him and said to him: May God reward you well for

what you have done. He said: Some are looking up to something and some fear

something. They asked him to nominate a successor. He said: Shall I bear the burden of

responsibility for you during my life and after my death? I wish I end up with nothing for

me or against me. If I nominate a successor, I will be doing like someone who is better

than me. [He meant Abu Bakr]. If I leave you without nominating anyone, I will be doing

like one who is better than me, Gods messenger. I realized when he mentioned the

Prophet that he would not nominate anyone.21

The early Caliphate was a unique historical system that cannot be repeated. It was,

therefore, required to put in place Islamic rulings that could not be put otherwise. This is

due to several reasons, such as:

1. Its closeness to the time of the Prophet and the fact that the Caliphs learnt from

him directly. Their reign, therefore, represents a role model. No one, however, can

hope to emulate their experiment. Theirs was a Caliphate following the system

laid down by the Prophet. An authentic hadith reported by al-[Irbad ibn Sariyah

quotes the Prophet as saying: Whoever of you lives long after me will see great

differences. Therefore, hold on to my way and to the way followed by the rightly-

guided Caliphs. Hold on to it and never let it slip away from you... 22 It is clear

that the phrase the way followed by the... Caliphs refers primarily to the general

affairs of the state. Hence the reference to their post as Caliphs. Their way is what

they all agreed upon, or what was widely known with no objection voiced. The

hadith also allows differences over the issues they differed upon. The way they

conducted government was to administer justice, refrain from taking public

money for themselves, refrain from favouritism, select people for public posts on

the basis of competence, regardless of their ancestry, and choose governors on the

basis of consultation.

21 Related by Muslim, number 1823. 22 Related by Abu Dawud, number 4607, al -Tirmidhi, number 2676, Ibn Majah number 44, Ibn Hibban, number 5

and al-Hakim, Vol. 1, p. 176.

35

2. They combined knowledge of Islam with administrative ability. Thus, they were

the scholars and the rulers at the same time. Therefore, the Quranic statement,

Believers, obey God and obey the Messenger and those from among you who

have been entrusted with authority, (4: 59) applies to them in all situations. Early

scholars interpret this Quranic statement in two ways, the better known of which

says that it refers to scholars and rulers. Ibn al -[Arabi says: In the early period of

Islam, the rulers were competent scholars...23 They were the authority in matters

of government and in Islamic scholarship at the same time. After them we had

divergent schools of thought in matters of religion and diverse views in

government and politics.

That was, then, a period that set standards and a sublime model. To require people to

emulate this model in every generation is impossible. What we should do is to consider

that generation to be the practical explanatory memorandum that takes a religious text

from its theoretical field to place it in practical life, with all its problems, contradictions,

right and error. On this basis we say that the practice of the rightly guided Caliphs is the

highest and practical point of reference. The purposes they sought can only be achieved

by adopting the measures that ensure justice and fairness among people, ihsan,

consultation and the preservation of peoples rights.

The difference between the post of the Caliph or the overall ruler and other governors

requires thorough consideration and discussion.

The Caliphate and Monarchy

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that although the Caliphate is theoretically the preferable

system, it may not be suitable in all situations. Monarchy or a different system of

government may be more suitable for people at times, provided that justice is ensured. 24

One religious Umayyad Caliph tried to force people to follow a very religious and ideal

way of life. He thought that he could emulate [Umar ibn al-Khattab or [Umar ibn [Abd

al-Aziz, but this led to a rebellion against him and it is said that some of the rebels drank

his blood. He was in no way insincere, but the reason appears to be that he did not fully

understand how circumstances had changed.

23 Vis. Badai[ al -Silk f i Tabai[ al-Mulk, p. 391. 24 Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu[al-Fatawa, Vol. 35, p. 22.

36

After the Caliphate, strong-fisted rule took over, with the pretext of preventing chaos.

Subsequently, a situation of authoritarian rule developed through the Umayyad and

Abbasid dynasties. This authoritarian rule relied on three elements:

1. Gods will as its source of legitimacy. The ruler would try to make people

understand that he is part of Gods will, which made any objection to him an

objection to God. As such, it is futile and destined to fail. This allowed the

concept of force to creep into Islamic thought. The thought that government

was assigned by an act of God was circulated. As such, individuals, institutions

and society have nothing to do with it. They could neither amend it nor object to

it. Indeed, they could not voice any reservation concerning it. This concept was

the worst thing government did to the people, making them believe that they

would be following their religion by submitting to unjust rule. They believed that

they had to accept it as Gods will and that it was not up to them to combat a

situation of injustice by trying to impose justice, or replace a situation of falsehood

by a situation of right.

2. Making financial gifts to win popularity and peoples loyalty and to drum up

support, instead of using state funds according to need and competence. Thus,

numerous gifts were given to people. Calling them gifts implied that the ruler

owned the money and that he was right to make whatever gifts he wanted to make

to whomever he wished. This made wealth circulate among a special group of

people. This is contrary to the principle of distributing war gains and its objective

as stated in the Qur'an: Thus, [war gains] would not just circulate among those of

you who are rich. (59: 7)

3. Force. The fact that a person managed to win power should be enough to make

people accept him and ensure stability. Peoples views were of no importance, as

long as he could impose his will. His means to ensure continued rule was fear, not

love. The Prophet mentioned that the Caliphate to succeed him would last thirty

years, after which God will give power to whomever He will. This is stated in an

authentic hadith.25 The Qur'an states: Say: Lord, Sovereign of all dominion, You

grant dominion to whom You will and take dominion away from whom You

will. (4: 26). It also says about David: God bestowed on him the kingdom and

wisdom, and taught him whatever He willed. (2: 251)

It seems, therefore, that the main problem is not with the nature of the political system

and whether it is headed by a Caliph, King, President or Prince. The most important

25 Vis, Al-Musnad, by al-Tayalisi, number 1203, Al-Musnad, by Ahmad, number 21919, Al-Jami[, by al-Tirmidhi,

number 2226, Sahih, by Ibn Hibban, number 6657, Al-Muntakhab min [Ilal al-Khallal, number 129 and Al-Silsilah al-

Sahihah, number 459.

37

matters are justice, good government, independence of the different authorities and

making sure that power is not all in the hand of one person.

It is not right that we treat Islamic history generally and the political history of Islam in

particular as sacred. Nor is it right to say that we must defer to it. We should treat it as a

human experiment that provides us with lessons to learn, mistakes to avoid and right

measures to emulate.

Generally speaking, the concept of force as applied to politics may be a means to ensure

stability. However, it gives the masses a subtle, or not so subtle, impression that the

change of government, the administration of justice and the enforcement of reforms can

only be achieved by the use of force. This view has been adopted by some revolutions,

but it is a course beset with danger.

Rules for Rulers

Some of the writings of those periods were influenced by the existing situation or by

neighbouring cultures, particularly the Persian. Some writers, who served the rulers, such

as Ibn al-Muqaffa[ , copied the Persian model that gave the ruler a measure of holiness.

They used too many great titles for rulers, and put in place etiquettes for speaking to the

ruler, how to behave in his presence and how to enter a room where he is. Some of them

said that if the ruler sneezes, no one is allowed to say, bless you, to him. According to al-

Jahiz, a famous literary figure of the Abbasid period, certain groups alleged that a ruler is

not held to account on the Day of Judgement. Those great titles that were given to rulers

were useless and meaningless. An Andalusian poet describes this stating that rulers of city

states are given titles of kings and emperors. Thus they are made to look like a cat trying

to emulate a lion.

Scholars who wrote on what is legitimate in the political area, or what they called Al-

Ahhkam al-Sultaniyyah, were more or less describing what was actually in practice and

trying to give it legitimate justification. What took place eventually was that great power

was concentrated in the hands of rulers.

Al-Mawardi was one of the most famous scholars who wrote on this subject. A section

of his book is taken directly from the Persian culture. Hence, we find the theme of

obedience prominent in his writings. Justice Abu Ya[la followed a similar line. Later, al-

Juwayni and al-Ghazali wrote largely in the same vein. Their writings are the result of the

scholarly effort they exercised within the prevailing conditions at the time.

However, our study of what took place in our political history must not stop us from

looking at the essential values stated in the Quran and by the Prophet which define

38

justice in government. Nor can we overlook the scholarly and popular efforts that aimed

to influence government and deal with its digression.

We may say that the fact that religious scholars stood away from those in power in

Islamic history led to the spread of dictatorship and weakened the moral and institutional

spirit of the state. However, it had its positive aspect: it kept our Islamic history immune

to what happened in Europe, where the Church imposed its hegemony on the state.

39

Two

Revolution and the Legitimacy of the Winner

Historical Change

Both a student of Islamic history and a religious scholar observe a huge gulf between the

practice followed by the rightly guided Caliphs, which represents the course followed by

the Prophets companions in implementing the values and concepts of the Qur'an and

the Sunnah, and what happened in the Umayyad period and subsequently.

Mu[awiyah, the first Umayyad Caliph, was first a governor of Syria appointed by [Umar

ibn al-Khattab. He was generous, forbearing and a man of integrity. This enabled him to

gain popularity. He took over at a time when Islamic society had just gone through a

painful period of strife and crisis in which the blood of some great people was shed. It

led to a state of confusion and shock. Mu[awiyah used this to pave the way to the

establishment of the Umayyad dynasty which ended the system of the rightly guided

Caliphs.

The term the practice of the rightly guided Caliphs refers to their method of

government and state administration. It is reported that the Prophet said: The first one

to change my Sunnah [i.e. practice] is a man from Umayyah.26 This hadith, if authentic, is

understood to refer to changing the system of choosing the Caliph and make it a

hereditary system.

[Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyad Caliph, was the first to take the Caliphate by the

sword, openly and without offering any justification. People were forced to pledge loyalty

to him after [Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr was killed. He certainly changed the Caliphate and

was himself changed by it.

The transformation was profound: politically, socially and culturally. The choice of the

Caliph was no longer by consultation; it became hereditary. The pledge of loyalty became

forced and compulsory. Money became the means to win over those in opposition and to

buy peoples loyalty. There was no financial accountability.

26 Related by Ibn Abi Shaybah number 35877; Ibn Ab i [As im in Al-Awail number 63, Abu Ya[la. It is also

mentioned by Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidayah wal -Nihayah, Vol. 11, p. 648, as also in Al-Matalib al-[Aliyah, Vol. 18, p. 284.

It is mentioned by al-Dulabi in Al-Kuna, Vol. 2, p. 508, Ibn [Adiy in Al-Kamil, Vol. 4, p. 97, Al-Bayhaqi in Dalail al-

Nubuwwah, Vol. 6, p. 466, Ibn [Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 65, p. 250. Vis. also Al-Silsilah al-Sahihah, number

1749.

40

All this was coupled with a gradual change of concepts, particularly the political ones,

such as government, peoples pledges, consultation and the Caliphate. The political

practice went through a fundamental change which also led to a change in scholarly

writings.

The changeover was gradual. During Mu[awiyahs reign, many of the Prophets

companions were alive, and they spoke out against whatever was unacceptable. The gulf,

however, was growing wider with every new Caliph, except for the three known for their

justice Mu[awiyah ibn Yazid, [Umar ibn [Abd al-[Aziz and Yazid ibn al-Walid. They

planned for a return to the political system that operated during the reign of the rightly

guided Caliphs.

Perhaps the fact that the Arabs came to know administrative and political organization

only recently had some effect on the turn of events. The tribal role began to reappear,

while the elites in society feared a return to insecurity and political upheavals. This was a

product of the outcome of the dispute between [Ali and Mu[awiyah which developed

into an armed conflict.

The reactionary changeover in the Islamic political system was not accomplished

peacefully, but it was ultimately able to impose itself, exploiting the fear from the violent

rebellions by al-Khawarij and the fear that the outer regions could secede causing the

state to split up. The defeats of the people of Madinah in the Battle of al-Harrah and the

scholars in Dayr al-Jamajim also helped the spread of the mentality of submission to

authority. Qatadah said: It was only after the defeat of the scholars that the philosophy

of al-Murjiah was started.27

Perhaps the revolution by al-Husayn ibn [Ali in 61 AH (681 CE) was the best known in

Islamic history. He called for a return to the practice of the rightly guided Cal iphs. The

reaction to al-Husayns killing was far reaching and long lasting. It led to several

rebellions such as those of al -Tawwabin and al-Mukhtar ibn Abi [Ubayd. These

rebellions had widely divergent aims.

It was at this point that the intellectual history of the Shia and their beliefs started.

The Umayyads and those who followed them relied on the principle of the winner, but

clothed it with a claim of right and the need to avenge [Uthmans killing. The Abbasid

revolution overthrew the Umayyad rule by force, as their state weakened beyond repair.

27 Vis. Ibn al-Ja[d, Al-Musnad number 1056, [Abdullah ibn Ahmad, Al-Sunnah number 644, Al-Khallal, Al-Sunnah

number 1230, Ibn Battah, Al-Ibanah al-Kubra number 1235 and Lalakai, Sharh Usl I[tiqad Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama[ah number 1841.

41

The Abbasids were able to recruit support by the Sunnah and the Shia. The Battle of al -

Zab, near Musil in Iraq, was the decisive confrontation that put a final end to the

Umayyad rule.

Scholars and the Question of Need

The legitimacy of the winner was the subject of discussion due to the lack of social and

civil institutions that could tilt the balance and the absence of a constitution that defined

rights and duties. Islamic scholars found themselves in a difficult position because of the

limited choices available. Moreover, they recalled cases of failure that led to increased

authoritarian rule in a situation that was akin to a state of emergency that allowed the

ruler to discard the little that remained of justice and peoples rights. The scholars were

keen to preserve the unity of the Muslim nation and to avoid the possibility of civil war

that threatened a fragile social structure. Therefore, they rejected division even at the

price of having to justify authoritarian rule.

Theirs was a practical ruling in a particular cultural period and temporary circumstances.

It was by no means an everlasting religious ruling. Just as it could not be suitable at the

time of the Prophets companions and the rightly guided Caliphs, it is equally unsuitable

for later generations, but for different reasons. Even those who approved it considered it

temporary and changeable as circumstances change. It was by no means a constant ruling

that relied on clear texts or clear practices by the first Muslim generation.

Yet the ruling involved some contradiction and a measure of appeasement. If someone

manages to score a victory, people have to submit to his authority by reason of force.

Should another one rise against him and oust him, the people will have to submit to this

latter one. They will even consider an attempt by the first one to regain power a rebellion

that could lead to a death sentence, regardless of his status. Those scholars considered

this to be a ruling necessitated by a pressing need in a society that could only submit to

such situations.

Such rulings by scholars did not prevent the Abbasids from staging their successful revolt

and establishing their state. They realized that the majority of the scholars would give

them their support if they were to win. By the same token, the scholars would be against

them should they lose. It is as the saying goes: Whoever wields power must be obeyed.

If, after the Abbasids victory, the Umayyads were to regroup and try to stage a comeback,

their attempt would be a rebellion against legitimate authority and they should be fought.

If they had enough power and were able to reinstate themselves by force, they would gain

legitimacy.

42

This begs the question: which successful revolutions will the scholars support? Which

will they condemn because of their failure? When will the rebels by considered traitors

and when will they be the supreme leaders?

The answer is based on two factors. The first is the balance of power and careful

planning. This was what the Abbasids did, as they patiently and carefully worked in secret

for 30 years. The second is the nature of the period and whether it is one of stability that

militates against change, or one of mild dissatisfaction that is not ready for a change, or

one that witnesses strong dissatisfaction that goes up to the critical point when the

general mood is ready for a total change.

We do not find this clearly stated in books of Islamic jurisprudence. We find it in books

of sociology, such as Ibn Khalduns Al-Muqaddimah, in which he says:

Under this heading we may mention the case of people who rise to change some

wrong, whether they belong to the masses or they are religious scholars. Many of

those who are devoted to worship and a religious life stand up to oppressive rulers

calling on them to refrain from doing what is wrong and counselling them to do

what is right. They do so hoping to earn Gods reward. They gain popularity

among the masses and in so doing they expose themselves to great danger.

Most of them are killed as a result, and they are accountable for their deeds rather

than earning reward for them, because God has not required them to do what

they did except in situations where they are able to do it in safety. The Prophet

says: Whoever of you sees an evil action, should change it with his hand. If he is

unable to do so, then with his tongue. If he is still unable to do so, then in his

heart. That is the weakest degree of faith.28

Kings and regimes are normally strong and stable. They cannot be undermined

except through strong demands widely supported by tribes and communities, as

we have already explained.

Such was the case of Gods prophets (peace be upon them all) when they