In this series we are publishing excerpts from the book Sabil Ar-rashad – The Path of Guidance authored by Mohamed Elhamy
In today’s world, the Islamic political system has become a central source of discord among Muslims, exacerbated by the dominant and overwhelming presence of Western civilisation and its liberal system. Many have come to perceive this Western model as a civilisation of freedom and liberation, juxtaposed against the Islamic system, which they mistakenly regard as a civilisation of despotism and tyranny. This deeply flawed perception has distorted many truths and misled countless people.
To grasp the core of the issue, the reader must understand that the fundamental dilemma in political systems has always been the trade-off between security and freedom. Throughout history, various political systems have oscillated between these two extremes. Tyrannical and authoritarian systems provide societal security and stability at the cost of freedom, stripping people of dignity, honour, and chivalry. Conversely, systems that protect and prioritise freedom are generally weak and rife with instability, crime, and unrest.
This dichotomy has long confounded philosophers and thinkers, who have sought to devise a system that reconciles both security and freedom. Some proposed solutions or theories, while others ultimately favoured one over the other — either opting for a security-focused system despite the loss of freedom or advocating for a freedom-centric system despite the loss of security.
The challenge is intensified with the expansion of a state or empire. As territories of a state grow, it becomes evident that the only practical system is a strong, authoritarian one. At the same time, all aspects of freedom, collaboration, and consultation within the system diminish. Historically, major civilisations operated under this model — tyrannical systems that oppressed humanity but provided the necessary stability and security which fostered the advancements in science, knowledge, arts, and architecture that are still present.
By contrast, in smaller states or city-states, it is possible to find a governing system based on consultation, participation, and deliberation. In such systems, people experience a sense of self-worth and humanity. However, these systems are often short-lived and collapse if internal discords erupt or if faced with external invasions by more powerful forces. When this happens, the previously cherished freedoms and participatory systems become useless to the people who lived in such a state.
Many may believe that this dilemma has been resolved in modern Western civilisation, which seems to have established a system combining both security and freedom — offering stability and security without tyranny and offering a sense of freedom and political participation without fear of external threats or internal insurrections. However, this, in fact, is a misconception due to a misunderstanding of the contemporary Western democratic system and its historical context. It is also rooted in the over-generalisation of a unique historical moment that is far from representative of the broader trajectory of nations. This issue will be further clarified in our discussion.
For now, the reader is invited to explore the Islamic political system with an awareness of this long-standing dilemma of security versus freedom.
The term ‘politics has evolved in meaning over time. One of the closest definitions to its true meaning is: good care and management. The Arabic word for politics is derived from the root word ‘sāsa,’ which refers to tending to and managing of affairs — like training and caring for a horse. Over time, the term became closely associated with ruling governments and states and how they address public affairs.
However, the term ‘politics’ has also acquired negative connotations that are commonly related to governance and state, and hence often associated in people’s mind with deceit, manipulation, selfish ambition, etc. This has led some secularists to claim that ‘there is no religion in politics and no politics in religion,’ arguing that religion is sacred, pure, and untarnished, whereas politics is tainted, corrupted, and sullied.
This perspective is fundamentally flawed. Politics is, in fact, the profession of the prophets. Among them were kings and statesmen — like Joseph, David, and Solomon (peace be upon them). The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned that: ‘The Children of Israel were governed by the prophets; whenever a prophet passed away, another succeeded him.’1 The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم himself exemplified this integration — he was a prophet, messenger, political leader, military commander, and legislator — a comprehensive embodiment of leadership.
For Muslims, politics is not divorced from religion or values. On the contrary, ‘politics’ for Muslims, as understood from the Quran and the life of The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, is the art of managing the interests of Muslims in a manner.
conducive to both their worldly and spiritual well-being. In essence, politics in Islam is a continuation of the prophetic mission after he passes away; it is therefore the continuation of the prophetic mission for the Muslim community.
Muslim scholars have articulated this mission as follows:
Al-Mawardi: ‘The Imamate (Islamic political ruling) is established as a succession of prophethood for safeguarding religion and managing worldly affairs.’2
Al-Juwayni: ‘The Imamate is a comprehensive leadership and authority over public and private matters in both religion and worldly affairs.’3
Ibn Khaldun: ‘It is to govern the masses in accordance with Sharia, ensuring their interests in both the hereafter and the worldly life, as all worldly matters are ultimately tied to the afterlife. Political leadership is, in its essence, a succession of the role of the divine legislator in protecting religion and managing the worldly affairs with the religious rulings’4
Contemporary scholars categorise politics into three primary domains:
1. Political Theory: This refers to the foundational ideas, principles, beliefs, and worldview adopted by those in power. A ruler who adopts an atheistic and materialistic view of life undoubtedly has a different attitude and worldview than a leader who believes in God and the afterlife and who does not believe that life is just matter. These differences are reflected in the political model adopted by each.
2. Political Systems: Political systems differ in as much as their underpinning ideologies, beliefs, and worldviews differ. We are not able to understand a political system without understanding the ideologies, principles and worldviews governing and shaping it. These ideologies and principles define the relationship between rulers and subjects, the rights and duties of each, the economic and administrative policies, the social structure, the cultural practices, and even the arts. They also determine inter-governmental relationships, now commonly referred to as ‘international relations.’
3. International Relations: Originally, international relations were part of the political systems. Now, due to the expanding dominance of the State, international relations have become an independent domain in the last decades. Unlike earlier times, when the State primarily controlled capitals
and major cities, the State now extends its influence to encompass the whole globe. Moreover, in the past, there was no one dominant power controlling all nations of the world as we see today, nor was there a global system or international institutions of the kind we now know. Governance in earlier times was largely the outcome of local interactions and conflicts among the people of a given region. However, the situation has become far more complex in modern times. International powers now have the ability to impose a ruler on a nation, support him with financial resources and military forces, and even deploy their armies to protect him from an uprising or to remove him and install another in his place. For this reason, it is said that the ‘State’ has become one of the subjects within the domain of ‘international relations.’
In this book, we will discuss politics through this tripartite framework. However, instead of using terms like ‘Islamic political theory,’ I will use alternative phrases like ‘Islamic political vision,’ ‘Islamic political belief,’ or ‘Islamic political perspective’, to point to the fact that in it is not ‘a point of view’, but rather a belief, a creed and a vision.
No one who carries a project for change or reform can avoid starting from their current reality. No reformer has ever been able to completely detach from their context or start from a vacuum or a blank slate. He is inevitably burdened by the challenges of his reality and simultaneously benefits from its advantages. Throughout his journey toward the desired reform, he must draw from his surroundings, endure its difficulties, navigate its constraints, and balance between benefits and harms to achieve his goals.
Such a reformer is necessarily gradual, persistent, willing to endure some discomfort, patient with certain dissatisfactions, and silent on some grievances in the hope of achieving the most important first, then the less important. At the same time, he capitalises on the positive aspects of his reality, even while working to change and improve it.
It is possible that he may pass away before seeing the fulfilment of his aspirations, but he will have laid the foundation, carved a path, and paved the way for others to continue.
Conversely, idealists who are overly attached to dreams, openly reject reality, and disregard natural laws have never succeeded in bringing about real change. Their endeavours often end in catastrophic failure or miserable isolation and withdrawal. More often than not, such idealists become fuel exploited by pragmatic individuals to advance their plans, even when those pragmatists are their adversaries. The idealistic dreamer — often labelled as radical or utopian — is frequently used by his enemies to serve purposes and goals of which he remains unaware.
No matter how much has been written and theorised about balancing benefits and harms, in practice, this balance depends on the insight of those who are actually acting on the ground and their estimation of the consequences. The best, that theoretical discussion in this area can achieve, is to outline general principles, broad guidelines, and clarify objectives and goals, serving primarily as guidance.
The framework for weighing benefits and harms has been extensively studied and explained by scholars, not to constrain or paralyse those who act but to assist, guide, and enlighten them.
While balancing benefits and harms is an unavoidable necessity for those striving to reform, it carries risks from two opposing extremes:
1. That benefits-and-harms balancing becomes a gateway to pursuing whims and desires, veering away from Sharia and its rulings, seeking personal, partisan, or organisational interests at the expense of the broader interests of the nation, often inflating or downplaying harms and benefits based on subjective inclinations.
2. That benefits-and-harms balancing is used to discourage and demotivate those who act. If the benefit is not overwhelmingly guaranteed and the harm is minimal or speculative, some may accept mediocrity, abandon high aspirations, turn away from noble goals, and shy away from sacrifice and struggle, exerting effort to delay inevitable battles under the guise of prudence.
Balancing benefits and harms is a vital tool for those striving toward Allah and working to support this religion and raise its banner. It equips them with insight into facts of life, human nature, and what may be necessary or compulsory to make. Balancing benefits and harms should not hinder or discourage them, nor should it provide a pretext for following personal whims.
One of the gravest and worst sufferings of the Muslim ummah, especially in the past century, has been the marginalisation of scholars and jurists from the judiciary because of the abolition of Islamic courts. Prior to the abolition of Islamic courts, scholars had been side-lined from political affairs as regimes became subservient to colonial powers. In such regimes, scholars were mere ornaments, not genuine advisors. This marginalisation was compounded in systems that opposed religion and its adherents outright, keeping scholars around only for appearances before Muslim masses or to legitimise the ruler’s desires.
This, among other consequences, led to the decline of political jurisprudence and the scarcity of scholars with knowledge of politics, its realities, and the ability to exercise ijtihad (independent reasoning) in its issues. They also lacked the capacity to foresee outcomes by observing the causes.
If a scholar practising ijtihad in general jurisprudence issues requires knowledge of both Islamic law and reality, then a scholar engaging in political jurisprudence must also grasp the distinctions between the Islamic model of governance and contemporary systems, both in theory and in historical and practical application. This demands knowledge of history, sociology, and various disciplines that have undergone significant transformations. Such expertise is difficult to acquire in countries plagued by tyranny and scientific stagnation.
As a result, disagreements often arise among different factions of Islamic political groups and schools of thought. These differences may occur in the ijtihad itself, its application to reality, or both. Furthermore, their practical implementation may be prone to errors, misjudgements, or be accompanied by unavoidable constraints and complex trade-offs.
The key is to assess the overall intentions and actions of those involved in Islamic political reform. We must be tolerant towards those whose overall conduct demonstrates a sincere desire to serve Islam and Muslims, even if we disagree over theory, application, or execution.
What we present in this book is a summary of what our ijtihad has led us to conclude. Any success is by God’s grace alone, while any errors, shortcomings, or forgetfulness are from ourselves and Satan.
1 Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith No. 3268), Sahih Muslim (Hadith No. 1842).
2. Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyyah (The Ordinances of a Government), page 5.
3. Al-Ghiyathi, page 15.
4. Tareekh Ibn Khaldun (The history of Ibn Khaldun), Volume 1, page 190.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely the author’s and do not neccessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of the website and its affiliates.
