Rules for the Rulers

Rules for the Rulers

Jafar Wafa

Obedience to those in authority, from amongst the ‘believers’, comes next only to obeying God and the Prophet. (Al - Nisa [4]: 59). This Qur’anic edict has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by all kinds of alien as well as unpopular and unelected rulers whom the Muslim peoples of the world had to suffer at one time or the other during centuries of their recorded history.

It is, in this context, important that while choosing those who should be in authority (‘oolul amr’) and who should rule and lord it over, not by divine right, but by national consensus, should be worthy of the powerful political position, conduct — wise. “The noblest among you, in the sight of God, is the best in conduct", says the Qur’an (Al - Hujuraat [49]: 13). Thus, good conduct and piety (‘taqva’) rank higher than mere merit or personal ability to govern.

The ideal is not meritocracy, or government by those who are really or apparently able. The ideal is rule by rightly guided persons who shun the worst of sins and indecencies, forgive when angry with someone, who conduct the affairs by mutual consultation and spend (in noble causes) what has been bestowed on them” (Al - Shoora: 37 - 38).

A fish, after turning stale, starts rotting from the head. This is mankind’s collective observation. And, in the words of the Qur’an, “complete annihilation of a populated place (‘Quria’) is preceded by utter abomination of its upper and richer class of inhabitants" (Bani Israil [17]:16). So, in a political system of any kind, it is the head of government and all those in authority, below and besides him, who should conform to the norms of morality and decency in public, as well as, private life, if the citizens of a state want to escape the threatened ‘complete annihilation’, as exemplified by the petering out of past empires and decadence of contemporary failed states.

Thus, it is in the nation’s collective interest that their rulers should bear good conduct and, accordingly, it should be their collective and concerted effort, through all peaceful means, to see that their rulers do so, and the incorrigibles among them are weeded out.

It was the class of well - to - do selfish persons, the so - called elite of Madina, who not only excused themselves from contributing monetarily, or otherwise, for the military campaign against the Roman outpost at Tabuk which was to be launched during the Holy Prophet’s (ﷺ) lifetime but also derided those less fortunate, but honest and selfless compatriots of theirs who donated for and participated in the campaign. On the former lot of Madinites fell the divine wrath in these words:

“Though you (the Prophet) ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them... (AI - Tauba [9]: 80). And never pray for any one of them when he dies nor stand by his grave.” (AI - Tauba [84]: 84). It were such chastisements and divinely ordered social boycott and religious excommunication of the niggardly and insolent elite, the pick of the town, that set them right and “they acknowledged their faults. They mixed a righteous action with another that was bad and God relented towards them and permitted taking of alms of their wealth to purify them and also allowed prayer for them.” (Al - Tauba [9]: 102 - 3).

Public awareness of and vigilant eye on the conduct and character of the ruling class and effective action against the delinquents is thus, quite in conformity with the Qur’an, and must be resorted to if conditions bear a close similarity with those obtaining in Madina at the time of ‘revelation.’

Without laying down the details of a specific form of government, apart from the broad hints occurring at two places, or so, about rule by ‘mutual consultation’, the Qur’an does prescribe the functions of a good government. These are covered by a very generalized exhortation to the rulers “to enforce the values recognized as good (‘Maroof’) and forbid those which are abhorrent (‘Munkar’)”. (Aal - e - Imran [3]: 110).

A government which can enforce ‘Maroof and forbid ‘Munkar’ cannot be a dictatorship foisted on the people. This is a surmise based on the fact that the Qur’an addressed the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) a couple of times suggesting that “he was not sent by God as a warder or jailor” but only as a remembrance, or as one who reminds people of their duty to follow the right path, because who so does not listen and believe will be given direct punishment by God on his return to Him for accountability (Al - Ghashiah [88]: 21 - 26).

One should, however, not misunderstand. The various punishments and penalties specified in the Qur’an for varying kinds of secular, and even moral, offences have to be awarded by any government voted into power by the ‘believers.’ Apart from imposing the prescribed punishments where called for, there has to be no compulsion, from the state in the matter of theological and sectarian beliefs. Such matters of faith should better be left entirely to the Almighty for reckoning in the hereafter, the government explaining this correct position to the people through its public relationing paraphernalia. The ruler, or group of rulers, should be persons of “good conduct” – a very comprehensive term, which is not narrow in implication and is not to be mistaken only for piety, observance of religious rituals, abstinence from sin and, much less, seclusion from secular affairs of the society. Such a person as Hazrat Abu Zar Ghiffari, one of the holy Prophet’s (ﷺ) close companions, may have been respected for all these qualities in his life time but he was not entrusted, either during the Prophet's life time or during the period of the ‘pious caliphs’, with the affairs of the state only on account of his piety and prayers.

Equally important for the rulers to ‘be able to enjoin ‘Maroof and forbid ‘Munkar’ is for them to act themselves on the Qur’anic precepts, concepts of social justice, individual liberty, equality before law and fraternity which were expounded by Islam more than a millennium prior to the advent of political theorists heralding the French Revolution. These were not precepts but were implemented in practice in the first Islamic republic set up in Madina.

Thus, our present day rulers have to translate into practice what they have been preaching about equality of social status, equality before law and equality of opportunity, and so on, while making speeches in pre — election rallies and meetings. They have to voluntarily surrender all their VIP distinctions, privileges and exemptions and stand on the same footing as the common man who clapped in their meetings, cheered them up and voted for them at the hustings.

The motto of ‘equality, liberty and fraternity’ which has received wide currency in connection with the epoch — making events in the seventeenth century Europe, formed the corner stone of Islamic faith founded a thousand years earlier. Rousseau had presumably this Islamic approach in mind when he wrote that “the best and most natural arrangement (would be) that the wisest should govern the many when it is assured that they will govern the many for its profit and not for their own” (‘Social Contract’  -  chapter v).

The Qur’an pronounces in clear terms that all human beings, including their rulers, are on trial, as “God has created death and life so that He may try which of you is best in conduct" (Al - Mulk [67]: 2). Since the rulers are not responsible for their own conduct alone but for ensuring that those over whom they have authority also conduct themselves in right manner, they are doubly answerable, to the masses over whom they rule and to God who has placed them in the position of authority over the mass of men, women and children inhabiting the territory where they rule.

How should they rule to please both their countrymen and the real Sovereign? The Qur’an shows the way: “Allah enjoins justice and kindness." (Al - Nahl [16]: 90). This piece of the divine revelation was adopted as state policy and is now recited at the end of every Friday sermon preceding the congregational prayer.