|
Amruhum Shura Baynahum
Allah’s hand is over the collectivity. Therefore, [when there arises a difference of opinion] follow the [opinion of the] majority. (Mustadrak, Kitabu’l-‘Ilm) Mawlana Abu’l-A‘la Mawdudi comments on this verse in the following words: The words Amruhum Shura Bainahum (Their system is based on their consultation, (42:38)), by their nature and scope entail five things: Firstly, people whose interests and rights relate to the collective affairs should be given the freedom to express their opinion, and they should be kept totally aware of the actual way in which their affairs are being run; they should also have the right to object and to criticise if they see anything wrong in the way their affairs are being conducted and the right to change those in charge if the faults are not rectified. It is outright dishonesty to forcibly silence people or to run affairs without taking them into confidence. No one can regard this attitude to be in accordance with this verse Secondly, the person who is to be entrusted to run the collective affairs of the people should be chosen through their absolute free consent. Consent obtained through force and intimidation, greed and gratification, deception and fraud is no consent at all. The ruler of a country is not one who obtains this position by hook or by crook; the real ruler is the person whom people choose freely without any compulsion. Thirdly, the people chosen for consultation should enjoy
the confidence of the majority. Consequently, those who are worthy of consultation
can in no way be regarded to enjoy the confidence of the people in the
true sense if they acquire this position through force, extortion or fraud
or by leading people astray.
This principle of consultation as
laid down by the Qur’an is also in accordance with the established
norms of sense and reason. No Muslim can be free of faults or shortcomings.
He can be the most distinguished as far as piety and knowledge are concerned;
he can be the most suitable for the position of authority he holds and
can even consider himself so. But even with these abilities, he cannot
attain the position of Khilafat without the general opinion of the
Muslims. Also, his assumption of this position after being elected through
a majority mandate does not necessitate at all that he cannot err or has
the prerogative to overrule a consensus or a majority opinion of the authorised
people. The Prophet (sws) had this prerogative because he, being divinely
guided, could not err. Even so, not one example can be cited from history
in which he had ignored a majority opinion in favour of his own.
It is not proper to consider that this directive of consultation is merely to please and honour the companions of the Prophet nor is it proper to think that it has been given so that the Ummah should follow the Prophet in this regard in such matters. On the other hand, if the companions knew that their opinion would neither be followed nor held in any regard after they had used all their intellectual abilities to form it, this would not have pleased or honoured them; instead they would have been totally discouraged, considering that their opinions are neither good enough to be acceptable nor fit enough to be followed. Therefore, such an interpretation of this directive of consultation is baseless and cannot be accepted. Furthermore, how can this aspect of the interpretation that this directive was merely given to teach the Prophet’s way to the Ummah be regarded as correct when the person who says this himself knows that the Ummah is aware of the fact that giving such an opinion was neither of any use nor was it followed in a particular matter. (Abu Bakr Jassas, Ahkamu’l-Qur’an, vol. 2, [Beirut: Daru’l-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1997], p. 41) Here, there is the possibility that someone might present the offensive launched by the Caliph Abu Bakr (rta) against those who in his times had desisted from paying Zakah and his attitude about the departure of the army led by Usamah Ibn Zayd as testimony to deny what has been said above. Consequently, it is necessary that the true nature of these two incidents be explained. My mentor Amin Ahsan Islahi comments on these in the following words: Deliberation on the action taken against those who were evading Zakah reveals a few facts: Firstly, this matter had nothing to do with the Caliph or the members of the Shura. Abu Bakr (rta) had never presented this issue in the Shura. Matters on which there is no direct guidance provided by the Qur’an and Sunnah or those which relate to the general well-being of the public are generally presented in the Shura. The matter of Zakah evasion has been explicitly dealt with in the Qur’an. In an Islamic state, people lose their rights of Muslim citizenship if they refuse to pay Zakah to the public treasury. This is categorically laid down in the Islamic Shari‘ah. Therefore, Abu Bakr (rta) was not required to present this matter before the Shura. On the contrary, it was his responsibility as a Caliph to implement a directive of the Qur’an. Consequently, this is precisely what he did. An example to illustrate this even further is that if a group of people creates a law and order situation in an Islamic state by going on a rampage of killing people, then the Caliph is not required to ask the permission of the Shura to deal with this nuisance; it is indeed his duty to freely use his authority to implement the punishment prescribed by the Qur’an for such criminals. Secondly, those who had expressed their reservations on this action of the Caliph Abu Bakr (rta) did so because they had misunderstood a Hadith of the Prophet (sws). Abu Bakr (rta) himself explained this Hadith in the light of another detailed Hadith, which he himself had heard from the Prophet (sws). This satisfied the people. It is obvious that a Hadith which is narrated by Abu Bakr (rta) himself is extremely reliable and therefore has great importance. Thirdly, the declaration of the Caliph Abu Bakr (rta) that he would fight alone with these evaders of Zakah if he finds no one to fight with them is not an expression of veto from him; it is on the contrary an expression of the responsibility imposed on a Caliph by Islam in implementing a definite and explicit directive. In Islam, the real responsibility of a Caliph in implementing the directives of Allah and His Prophet (sws) is that he should try his utmost in their implementation even if no one supports him. He is not required to be bound by the opinion of the people in categorical matters of the Shari‘ah. Only matters in which there is no direct guidance provided by the Qur’an and Sunnah or those which relate to the general well being of the public need the approval of the people eligible for consultation. Similar is the case of the departure of the army led
by Usamah (rta). All arrangements for this had already been completed
in the life of the Prophet (sws) himself. It is he who had selected the
people who would constitute this army. The Prophet (sws) himself had hoisted
the flag of the army. If the Prophet (sws) had not fallen severely sick,
the army would have been on its way. The Prophet (sws) could not recover
from his sickness and died. Abu Bakr (rta) then assumed charge as
Caliph. He quite naturally thought that his greatest responsibility as
a Caliph was to send the army which had been prepared by the Prophet (sws)
and about whose early departure the Prophet (sws) was very anxious. As
the Caliph, it was his great honour as well as his primary responsibility
to execute a prior directive of the Prophet (sws). He was not required
to consult his people for this because all matters concerning the army
had already been settled by the Prophet (sws). As a the successor to the
Prophet (sws), it was his duty to enforce these directives instead of amending
them. So, when some people, because of the peculiar circumstances which
had arisen, regarded this campaign to be against the call of the day, Abu
Bakr (rta) asserted unequivocally that he would not furl the flag which
had been unfurled by the Prophet (sws).
|