A Glimpse at
the Political Philosophy of Islam
By: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yezdi
If we want to make a balanced
comparison between Islamic and other views in the field of polity and form of government
we should make a review of the important issues in the philosophy of politics, and on
every issue find out what is the view of Islam, comparing it with the other views. We must
make a detailed investigation of the basic differences between them. Very briefly, we will
now mention some issues and explain the views of Islam pertaining to them in order that it
may be possible to make a comparison.
The first issue is the importance
of social life. Islam, like the other schools of thought, emphasizes social life. But more
than this it considers it a duty to attend to social problems and to struggle for the
benefit of all human beings. Being indifferent to such problems is considered in Islam to
be a grave sin. This attention is so important that it sometimes becomes necessary to
spend all of one's property and even to endanger one's own life to save others from
worldly and other-worldly afflictions and harms, from going astray and from spiritual
corruption, and from misfortune in the next life. It is unlikely that any school of
thought other than Islam has advanced this idea so far. Of course, we believe that none of
the heavenly religions have any disagreement on basic principles and rules. Naturally,
they hold this view in common with Islam.
The second issue is the necessity
of law for social life, since no society can survive without rules and social regulations,
for otherwise it would soon succumb to chaos, deterioration and destruction. The view of
Islam on this matter is also clear and does not Stand in need of an explanation. We should
however, mention two points. The first point is that from the perspective of Islam, the
goal of law is not only to bring about social order and discipline, but beyond this to
maintain social justice; because, firstly, without justice the order would not be durable
and the masses of the people would not tolerate injustice and oppression for ever; and
secondly, in a society not governed by justice most people would not have the opportunity
for desired growth and development and hence, the goal of man's creation and social life
would not be realized.
Another point is that, from the
Islamic viewpoint, social laws should be such as to prepare the ground and context for the
spiritual growth and eternal felicity of the people. At the very least they should not be
inconsistent with spiritual development, for, in the view of Islam, the life of this world
is but a passing phase of the entire human life which despite its short duration, has a
fundamental role in human destiny. That is, it is in this phase that with his conscious
behaviour the human being should prepare for himself his everlasting felicity or
wretchedness. Even if a law could maintain the social order in this world but would cause
eternal misfortune for humans, from this Islamic view it would not be a desirable law,
even if it were to be accepted by the majority.
The third issue is how and by
whom the law should be legislated. The accepted theory in most current societies is that
the laws should be legislated and approved by the people themselves or their
representatives. Since the consensus of all the people or of their representatives is
practically impossible, the view of the majority (even if merely half plus one) is the
criteria for the validity of the law.
This theory, first of all, is
based on the idea that the goal of law is to satisfy the people's needs, not to provide
that which would truly benefit them. Secondly, since it is impossible to have unanimous
agreement, we should suffice with the opinion of the majority. However, the first idea
mentioned is not accepted by Islam, for many people wish to satisfy their bestial
instincts and temporary lusts without thinking of their disastrous consequences.
Usually the number of such people
is at least one half plus one, so the social laws would be dictated by the desires of such
people.
It is obvious that the schools
which believe in a goal beyond animal lust and base desire will not be able to condone
this idea.
With regard to the second idea,
that is, the validity of the vote of the majority in the absence of unanimity, it should
be said that only in absence of a deciding divine and intellectual criterion can the
majority be the criterion for preferring an opinion. However, in the Islamic system there
do exist such divine and intellectual criteria. In addition, usually a powerful minority,
by using the facilities for widespread propaganda, has an important role in channelling
the thoughts and beliefs of others, and in fact what is approved is only the desire of a
limited but powerful minority, not the true desire of the majority or of all the people.
Furthermore, if the criterion is that the people's choice would be valid for themselves,
why shouldn't we also accept the choice of a minority as valid for itself, even if it
would result in a type of autonomy? In this case, what would be the logical justification
for governments to oppose the wishes of some social groups which they rule by force?!
From the perspective of Islam
with regard to this problem, laws should be legislated in such a way that they procure the
benefits of the members of the society, particularly of those who desire to improve
themselves and to gain eternal felicity. It is obvious that such law should be legislated
by one who has enough knowledge about the real and eternal benefits of humans, and,
secondly, who does not sacrifice the benefits of others for his personal interests and
vain desires. It is obvious that there is no one wiser than Almighty God, Who has no need
of His servants or their works, and Who has provided divine legislation only for the sake
of benefitting them. Certainly, the social laws described in the heavenly revealed books
do not explicitly state all the social rules which are necessary for every time and place,
but religious law does provide a general framework for the derivation of regulations
necessary for changing conditions of time and place, and, at least by observing the limits
delineated by this framework it may be possible to avoid falling into the deadly valley of
eternal perdition.
The fourth issue is that of who
should enforce social law.
Islam, like most other political
schools, requires the existence of a State as a power which is able to prevent violations
of the law, and the lack of the State is equivalent to the suspension of law, chaos, and
the violation of the rights of the weak.
It is obvious that there are two
fundamental qualifications for administrators of the law, particularly for the one at the
top of the pyramid of power: first, sufficient knowledge of the law in order to prevent
infringement of it due to ignorance; and second, self-control over his desires in order to
prevent the intentional misapplication of the law. Other qualifications, like
administrative acumen, courage, and so on, can be considered as supplementary
requirements. Naturally, the ideal is that the administrator of the law should generally
be without ignorance, selfishness, and other vices, and such a person is one who, in
religious terminology, is called ma'sum (infallible). All Muslims believe in the
infallibility of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon
his progeny, and the Shi'ites also believe in the infallibility of the Imams, peace be
upon them. In the absence of an infallible one, these criteria should be observed, to the
extent possible, for the selection of the leader as well as for lower positions in the
official hierarchy in a proportionate manner.
Basically, the basis of the
thesis of Wiláyat-e faqih (lit., guardianship of the jurisprudent meeting all the
requisite requirements) is the proposition that a person who is nearer to the station of
infallibility should occupy the position of the infallible one, i.e. on top of the pyramid
of power, in order that this position may be occupied by one with the best knowledge of
the precepts and laws and their fundamental bases, one who has the most piety and
self-control. By means of these two basic qualifications (jurisprudence and piety) it is
at least possible that he will be less likely intentionally or unintentionally to
transgress against the law of Islam.
Another point which may be raised
here is that from an Islamic perspective no human has any intrinsic right to rule over
another, even if he issues valid and just decrees, for all people, like other creatures,
have been created and are the property of Almighty God, and no one may interfere with
another's property without his permission. A human being has no right even to use his own
bodily parts in a manner contrary to God's will and consequently he cannot allow others to
do so. Hence, the only one Who Himself has an absolute right to govern and to depose of
anyone and anything is Almighty God. Every authority and wiláyah should be from
Him or at least with His sanction. It is obvious that Almighty God would never permit
anyone to execute the law without having the necessary knowledge of His laws, or without
there being a guarantee of the correctness of his deeds and obedience to the divine laws,
or without piety and the necessary moral qualifications.
On the other hand, we know that
except for the prophets and their selected successors, no one else was specifically
designated by Almighty God to execute the law and to govern. So, people must try to find
persons who resemble the prophets and the Ma'súmún (infallible ones) as closely
as possible. It seems that the best way is first to select committed experts of religion
(pious jurists), and then to allow them to select from among themselves the best one, for
the experts may more correctly identify the best.
Such selection is safer from
defects of an intentional or unintentional character.
It also has become clear that the
political features of Islam derive from the basic elements of the world view of Islam and
its view of man. That is, the emphasis on the just character of law and its harmony with
human spiritual development derives from the view that God Almighty created all mankind in
order that people may follow the way of development toward nearness to . God and eternal
felicity by their meritorious conduct in life. The right of all humans to happiness and
the enjoyment of the blessings of this world exists in order that all may advance on the
way of their development in a better and speedier manner. The legislation of the divine
laws and religious principles, whether they apply to the individual or society, is for
determining the basic outlines of this path. The conditions of expertise in law and piety,
in addition to other necessary administrative qualifications, is for securing the
necessary conditions for the general development of the people, for reaching eternal
felicity and for preventing intentional and unintentional deviation from the correct way
of social life.
We are hopeful that God Almighty
will grant all of us Ibis opportunity to thank Him for all His blessings, and for the
blessing of His law and guidance toward the life of felicity which we seek.
Back to
Index of Articles
|
