ISLAM AND POLITICS, THEORY AND PRACTICES ACCORDING TO AHL AL-SUNNA
WA’L JAMA‘A
As will be discussed in a further detail, Nadlatul Ulama
claims as the defender of the Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a tradition and it is also
very clear that its political theory is influenced by the ideology of Ahl
al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a. To get a better understanding of Nahdlatul Ulama, before
anything it is therefore necessary to be familiar with the tradition of the Ahl
al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a. In what follows, I will present a short historical
development of the tradition of Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a as well as its
political theory.
A. Ahl
al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a Tradition
Ahl al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a literally
means the peoples who follow the Prophet’s traditions and the consensus of the ‘ulama‘. As the name itself indicates,
Prophetic traditions and ijma‘
or consensus are of fundamental elements of Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a tradition.
In the effort to maintain jama‘a,
the unity of the community Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a always stand in the middle
course between the conflicting ideas and accommodate them in order to be able
to develop a consensus among the members of society. Among Ahl al-Sunna wa’l
Jama‘a, it is therefore very rare to find a rigid approach in understanding
Islam and in contrast it is a usual to see them adopting a flexible and
moderate outlook.
Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a,
therefore, is a group of Muslims who bases their religious understanding of all
aspects of life on the principles of moderation, neutrality and balance.[1]
The historical development of Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a itself is the key factor
that leads the followers of this party to develop a moderate, neutral and
balance outlooks and approaches toward their religion and society. Ahl al-Sunna
wa’l Jama‘a, as will be discussed in more detail, grew up as Muslim orthodox
and stood up between the two extreme parties: the Khawarij and Shi‘a. This
socio-historical development had influenced the way they understand religion
and the manner by which they behave to the other Muslim groups. The followers
of Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a always make an effort to combine the revelation and
reason in establishing both legal theories and theological doctrines.
Furthermore, they at all time attempt to accommodate the spiritualism and legal
formalism when they practice religious rituals. Besides they are not so easy to
consider people outside their group as infidel.
The embryo of Ahl
al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a originated from the earlier Muslim generation that consisted
of piety-minded group who did not support either two parties involved in
political clash. Muslim community began to suffer from the factional conflict
and to be divided into some parties when political rift for the first time grew
out of a struggle for the leadership of Muslim community by the two able
contestants for the caliphate: ‘Ali ibn Abi T{alib, the fourth caliph and
Mu‘awiya, the governor of Damascus and the founder of Umayyad dynasty.
According to the traditional account, just as was Ali about to achieve the
victory in a battle at Siffin in 657 M., Muawiya tricked him into calling off
the fighting and consenting to the arbitration which eventually resulted in his
downfall. As consequent a faction of his army rebelled against him and even challenged
his claim to political authority for the reason that he had done a mistake by
accepting the arbitration.[2]
This faction separated
themselves form ‘Ali@ and then known as Khawarij. In their cause to reach what
they thought as principle they are not reluctant to use any ways including the
violence. To the Khawarij, a Muslim who committed a grave sin would case him to
be a Muslims and if he were the Caliph he could be deposed from his post and
killed legitimately. This is not merely an idea but they had put it into
practical. They had managed to kill ‘Ali and Mu‘awi@ya, for they thought that
both of them had committed political grave sin when both of them agreed to set
an arbitration to settle the political dispute. In 661 M ‘Ali was murdered by
Ibn Muljam, one of the member of the Khawarij, while Mu‘awi@ya knew the
Khawarij’s plot to kill him before they could execute the plan and therefore he
was able to escape from the assassination.[3]
This extremist position
did not go unchallenged by other Muslims parties. There were many people who
were still loyal to ‘Ali@ and even had pledged they would be the friends whom
‘Ali@ made a friend and would be the enemy to whom ‘Ali@ declared as his enemy.
These people firmly believed that ‘Ali@ did not commit a mistake. To them the
most authoritative leader after Muh}ammad was only ‘Ali@. He was the true
successor of the Prophet Muh{ammad and the one who could be the heir of the
claim of the leadership of Muslim community from him. They are known as Shi‘at
‘Ali.[4]
Outside of these
conflicting factions there were a large group of Muslims who do not involve
themselves into political dispute. On their reflection to the political
conflict among Muslim community, they found that the unity of the community is
a vital to the life of Muslim community and for them it took on special
spiritual important as being under the divine protection. They were the
neutrals in the sense that their allegiance to Mua‘wi@ya after ‘Ali’s@ dead had
been reluctant, for them the principle of jama‘a remained primary. They
did not merge with Mua‘wi@ya’s own Syrian partisan, for they regarded the
Syrian power as temporary. Should they were dissatisfied with ‘Ali@; they were
ready to condemn Mua’wiya if he failed their high expectation. Even though they
rejected the incipient of Shi‘ism of the time, in favor of loyalty to the whole
community in its actual historical fate they had become oppositional in spirit
to the ruling Caliph.[5]
The Mua’wiya dynasty then
become the monarchy with its all cultures, especially that related to the
worldly life. Many Muhammad associates who were still concerned with the unity
of Muslim community always reminded all Muslims to follow the Qur’anic teaching
and from the very first generation there had been individual Muslim, like Abu
Dharr (d. 650) who took their piety seriously to undertake the rebuke of the
early Caliphs when they seemed too worldly. Later on under the leadership of
H{asan al-Bas}hri@ (d. 728. M), they made a greater effort to maintain the
unity of the community. H{asan al-Bahs}ri is well remembered for his suggestion
to Muslim community to constantly follow the Qur’anic teaching which says: “And
that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from thy
Lord, so that they may believe therein and their hearts may submit humbly unto
Him. Lo! Allah verily is guiding those who believe unto a right path”.[6]
This means that H{asan al-Bas}ri wanted to worn Muslim to pay attention the
Islamic teaching and not to be attracted by the conflicts.
The same as of their predecessor, the
political attitude of this group toward the ruler is always balance in the
sense that even though they accepted the ruling Caliph, they did not keep
silent when they knew the Caliph did something wrong. It is narrated that
H{asan al-Bashri had no fear to confront the Caliph Abd al-Malik’s position
concerning the human freedom. The Caliph held the theological opinion that man
is not free and even had punished who held different opinion with him. H{asan
al-Bas}ri criticized Abd al-Malik and before him he defended his position
concerning the freedom of the human will.[7]
The Mua‘wiya dynasty
lasted until 750 and before it was replaced by the Abbasid caliphate. The
period of Mua‘wiya dynasty witnessed the polarization of political and
religious attitudes that become formalized doctrine. Disputes arose such
questions as the definition of the true belief, the status of those profess
Islam but commit a grief sin, freedom and determinism. These remained basic questions
discussed by later Sunni thinkers who sought to formulate theologies consistent
with the Qur’an and the Sunna. In this
period emerged the sectarian group known as Jaabariya, Qadariya and the Ahl
Hadith.
During the Abbasid caliphate (750-1258), the Sunni
Islam came into its establishment. The Sunni fours schools of the Sunni law
initiated by Abu H{anifah (d. 767), Malik ibn Anas (d. 795), al-Shafi‘i (d. 820) and Ah}mad ibn H{anbal (d. 855)
become firmly established. The development of the Sunnism in this period was
forced by the excessive use of reason by the Mu‘tazila and the development of
the Shi‘a.
In their ways to keep the
orthodox Muslim group alive the Ahl al-H{adith made a great
contribution. The Ahl al-H{adith are in fact the agent to produce the
structure of the orthodoxy by formulating and consolidating the religious
truth. The political wars, which gave birth to the theological and dogmatic
controversies, gave rise to a specially prominent type of predictive H{adi@th
known as the H{adi@th of civil wars (H{adi@th al-Fitan). It is no doubt
that the main purpose is to steer a middle course especially between the
Khariji and Shi‘i political and theological extremes.
We find many H{adi@ths
clearly oppose the Khariji position, one
of them is reported by H{udhaifah as follows:
People
used to ask the Prophet about the good while I used to ask him about the evil
out of fear lest it should overtake me. So I said, O Prophet of God! We have
been previously in ignorance and evil and then God brought us this good
(through you); will there be evil again after the present good? “Yes”, said the
Prophet. And will good return once again after that evil? I asked. The Prophet
said, Yes, but there will be a mixture of corruption in it. What will be its
corruption? I asked. The Prophet replied, “Some people shall follow other than
my Sunnah and shall lead people not whither I lead. Some of their deeds
will be good, other bad.” I asked, Will there be, after this (mixed) good,
again evil? He said, Yes, propagandists standing at the gates of Hell; whoever
listens to them, they will throw him to it. Describe them for us O Prophet of
God! I requested. The Prophet said, They are from our own race, speaking the
very same tongue. What is your command for me in case I find myself in such
situation? I asked. The Prophet said stick to the majority party of the Muslims
and to their political leader. But if they have no majority party nor political
leader, I enquired. The Prophet replied, Then forsake all the factions even if
you have to cling to the root of a tree until death overtakes you in this
condition.
According to another version of the H{adith recorded
in the S{ah{ih{ Muslim, the Prophet said:
After me shall
come political leaders who will not be guided by my guidance and will not
follow my Sunnah, and among them shall arise people whose hearts shall
be devils in physical frames of humans. H{udhayfah says, he asked, What shall I
do, O Prophet of God! if I find my self in such a situation? Thereupon the
Prophet answered, Listen and obey the political leaders. And should he even
strike your back and wrest your property, you should but listen and obey.
Of course neither of
these two H{adiths are acceptable as the genuine prophetic saying. However both
of them teach Muslim to join the majority and to obey the leader at any cost
except possibly infidelity. This shows that these H{adith emerge from the
political necessity. The dictum to obey even the unjust ruler is a counsel of
wisdom dictated also by the political needs arising out of civil wars. It is to
confront the Khariji who openly rebelled against the Caliph. Another typical
anti-Khariji H{adith is the following which absolute passivity and isolationism
in contrast to the Khariji rebellionism, “There shall be civil wars wherein a
sit-at-home will be better than a standing person; and a standing person shall
be better than one who walks; and one who walks will be better than one who
runs…” It is obvious that the main concern of this H{adith is to confront the
Khariji activism for political life.
However not all H{adiths
are not anti Khariji. There is for example, a H{adith which is narrated by Ibn
H{anbal, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah in which a Khariji political
doctrine is also incorporated. “My (last) advice to you is fear God and to
render absolute obedience (to the political leader) even if he a black slave.
Those of you who survive me shall see great differences (among Muslims); so
stick to my Sunnah and that of the rightly-guided and divinely-led
Caliphs.” In this H{adith the absolute obedience is anti-Kharijite but the
extension of the rulership to a black slave is of the Khariji favor. For the
followers of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah had upheld that the ruler must
come from the Quraysh tribe while the Shi‘ah had demanded that the Imamah, the
leadership of the community should belong to the descendant of the House of Ali
and only the Khariji alone that extend the privilege of possible political
leadership of the community to every Muslim even though he be a black slave if
he fits for the office.
The
H{adiths quoted above show that Ahl al-H{adith to steer the faction into
a middle way and also proves that Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah incorporate
into its doctrine the elements of both two factions. Besides it also
demonstrates the great contribution of the Ahl al-H{adith in the
consolidation of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah doctrines. It therefore
no wonder that the name Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah is taken from the
word Sunnah to mean the Prophet tradition and jama‘ah to denote
the unity of the community to illustrates the role of Ahl al-H{adith and
the end to achieved in the establisment of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah.
The Ahl
al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah became more distinctive group after the mih}nah
(inquisition), which started from 833 and lasted in 849. Shortly before his
death in 833 the Caliph al-Ma’mun decreed that the chief officials in Baghdad
and the provincial capitols had to make a public declaration that they accepted
the theological doctrine of the createdness of the Qur’an. Many did so but a
few refused and were ready to suffer from the physical punishment. Among the
notable scholars who had the courage to refuse the Caliph’s policy was Ah}mad
ibn H{anbal. The policy was officially continued until the beginning of the
reign of al-Muwakkil in 849. Behind the policy of the inquisition there was a
conflict between Mu‘tazilah who represent the proponents of the rationalism and
the Ahl al-H{adith who is supported among others by Ah}mad ibn H{anbal.
In the theological debate Mu‘tazilah always uses the reason and rarely bases
the argument on the Prophetic tradition. Meanwhile the Ahl al-H{adith accepts
the literal meaning of the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The Ahl al-H}adith’s
approach is suitable to what the common people are in favor, therefore there is
no wonder that they support it and are ready to confront the Mu‘tazilah’s
doctrine.
The
defeat of the Mu‘tazilah by the Ahl al-H{adith indicates that
Mu‘tazilah’s ideology is unable to be the state-official. The reason is that
Mu‘tazilah tended to make it absolute what they think as right and even they
forced others to follow their understanding of Islam. The absolutist approach,
even though it might be right, is hardly accepted by many peoples.
Soon after the Mih}{{}nah, Abu
H{asan al-Ash‘ari (873-935 M) renounced the Mu’tazilah’s doctrine, and became
the proponent of Ahl al-H{adith. Before he leaved his old ideology he
had been the well-known scholar and a master in Mu‘tazilah theology. His
conversion therefore could strengthen the Ahl al-H{adith party by
combining together the rational argument
he had learned during he was still member of Mu‘tazilah with the textual
understanding of the Ahl al-H{adith. This theological approach is easily
found when we study Abu H{asan al-Ash‘ari’s theory of kasb in which he
tried to solve the problem of the human action in a polemical discussion
between proponent of free will and predestination.
Al-Ash‘ari
rejected the Mu’tazilah’s idea of free will to mean that human is able to do an
act or the opposite and suggested the doctrine of kasb or acquisition
according to which God creates the acts of individuals but the individuals
acquire them. Here the act is God’s creation in that its is only at that moment
of action that he creates the power to act in the individual, and in that it is
power to do only that act, not either this act or its opposite.[8]
Another
Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah scholar, al-Maturidi also held the same
opinion with that of al-Ash‘ari. He took the middle course of the belief of the
Jabariyah, who deprived man of any choice and regarded him as the instrument of
God’s will, and the view of Mu‘tazilah who denied God any control over man’s
action. To defend his position Al-Maturidi is saying:
It is just to assert both views (first), in order that God
may be described by the attributes which ascribes Himself and be praised by
them as He says: ‘He is the creator of everything’[9]
and He is omnipotent over everything,[10]
and (the second) in order that He may be just and confer His favours as He
says: ‘You Lord is not unjust to His servants’[11]
and ‘were it not for God’s favour to you and His mercy, you would follow the
devil except for e few of you’.[12]
The proof of necessity of holding this opinion is the existence of states in
actions of men, which their imaginations cannot conceive nor their reasons
understand, and other states which they can understand and which their reasons
can conceive. Thus it is clear that the actions of the first group are not
theirs, actions of the second group are theirs. The first group consists of
such actions as imagining how things come from non-existence into being… the
second consists of such actions as movement and rest according to what is
forbidden and what is commanded. It is clear that those actions of men that
belong to the first group are not theirs, and those that belong to the second
group are theirs.[13]
In the field of legal
theory,[14]
the followers Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah show their consistency to
undertake the principle of moderation and balance by accommodating the reason
and revelation. To Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah jurists the Islamic law is
based on the Qur’an, the H{adith, ijma‘ and qiyas. Considering such
principle, it clear that the followers of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah are
working to find a better solution of the tension between reason and
revelation. Actually the tension between the reason namely, the consideration
of man’s on welfare in his life in one hand and revelation, that is the divine
intervention and decree in another, had been present since the time of the
Prophet Muh{ammad. The Qur’an is untiringly remind the Arab people to obey
Allah and the His Prophet and to abandon their old way of life in favor of the
new ‘path’ prescribed by the Deity, constitutes the practical equivalent of
higher will dictating to man modes of thinking and living that are often at
variance with his normative way. The Divine interference was on the increase
with passage of time. The Qur’an however could not provide on its own the basis
for this intervention for the mundane affairs. The second source then completed
what the Qur’an leaved unexplained or gave no detail rules. The followers of Ahl
al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah considere the Qur’an and the H{adith both as the
source of the Islamic law but they extend these two sources with the reason
known as ijtihad to regulate the new cases.
In respect to the role of first two
sources, the Qur’an and the H{adith as being the basis of the Islamic law, all
Muslims are in agreement. While on the matter of the role of reason both the
Khariji and Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah can accept it and the Shi‘i
cannot. As they reject the role of reason the Shi‘i maintain that the further
elaboration of the law is the sole prerogative of the divinely inspired Imam.
Apparently, the Shi‘i’s legal theory is closely related with their political
thought that even though the Imam is formally designated by his predecessors he
is appointed by God and possesses something that of the Devine essence. [15]
The Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a legal theory is a middle course between the
rationalist who put reason as the authoritative source of the law and the
extreme traditionalist who reject the role of the reason by emphasizing the
Divine intervention directly or indirectly in the life of human being. The
followers of the Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a stress the necessity to follow
the Qur’anic teachings and the H{adith but in the same time they accept the
role of reason by the way of qiyas
to find the solution for the new problem faced by Muslims.
That the Ahl al-Sunna wa’l Jama‘a’s
legal theory stands in the middle course and the accommodates the two interests
is well represented by Muh}ammd ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i’s legal theory which he
set out in his al-Risalah.[16]
Al-Shafi‘i (d. 820) developed his legal theory with the aim to strongly
emphasize the role of the revelation in the sense that law should be based on
the Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet. He nevertheless introduced qiyas
as the valid method for the legal reasoning. It is true that al-Shafi‘i
narrowed the scope of the legal reasoning (ijtihad) to only qiyas,
analogy and rejected the istih}san, the juristic preference. Al-Shafi‘i
rejected the use of the istih}san in legal reasoning on the reason that
the application of the juristic preference amounts to initiating a decision
which is not based upon parallel example. It mean means not to follow the Qur’an
and the H{adith and to abandon analogy in favor of the personal preference.
Such a procedure is not forbidden, for it is not allowed to anyone to pass a
judgment or juristic opinion unless his opinion is based on the khabar lazim,
i.e. the Qur’an, the Sunnah and ijma‘ and qiyas.
In one hand, the S{ufism is an
epistemological alternative to the speculative theology and a reaction to the
dogmatic attitude of law concerning the relation between humankind and God, in
another. As briefly mentioned earlier after the Siffin war at 657 M, the unity
of Muslim community split off into factions. We find the Khariji who opposed
‘Ali and Mu‘awiyah and believed that the true believer is only the one who
embraced their doctrine. There was also the Shi‘i who opposed the Khariji and
could not willingly accept the Umayyah Caliphate. Amid this political conflict
came H}asan al-Bas}ri to confront their tendencies and to save Muslim community
from political conflict by directing them to follow the Qur’anic teaching.
H}asan al-Bas}ri can be considered as the Sufi master for his example of being
pious man.
The
political conflict discussed above, could happen because of the theological
question concerning the human action. This question in the passage of time
leads to the problem concerning the nature of God and the relation between
human and his Creator. After the introduction of the philosophy into Muslim
world, Muslims began to use speculative thinking to clarify that theological
question. The Mu‘tazilah is the best example among the theologians who are
employing the reason in the theological discussion.
In the
reaction to the speculative thoughts on the nature of God and the relation
between God and human, the S{ufis introduce an alternative way to approach God.
They reject the speculative argument to prove the existence of God and replace
it with the experiential knowledge. After such an intensive efforts, they claim
to know God through the mystical experience and come to the state of union with
God. Al-H{allaj (d. 309) is only one example of the S{ufis who arrive at the
stage of the unity and lose their personality in the Divine reality.
The
pantheistic doctrine of union with the Divine exposed by al-H{allaj and others
seems contradictory with the idea that God is beyond the nature. In other words
Muslim scholars face the problem of the way to relate the idea of unity with
Divine with the Islamic teaching of the otherness of God, between the idea that
God emanates in the nature and the existence of God which beyond His creature.
In this case the S{ufis make an effort to combine two ideas and to protect the
idea from irresponsible people who claim of being in union with God and
therefore he has nothing to with the Islamic law.
Al-Junaid
(d. 910) is a sholar who pays attention to that problem and tries to combine
between the Islamic Mysticism with other Islamic teachings. We find him very
concerned with the redefinition of the meaning of union with the Divine. To
al-Junaid the union with the Divine will lead to the willingness to follow His
command. Al-Junaid says:
You should know that the beginning of
the worship Allah is to know Him (ma‘rifat Allah). The principle of the
ways to know Allah is to declare that God is to be One (tauh}id Allah).
The way to declare that God is to be One is to negate all attributes from Him
by how, where and when. From this negation man will arrive at a proof of His
Oneness. And the proof of His Oness as such is the guidance of Him and from His
guidance, one will attains the tuah}}{}id (monotheism). From the
monotheism it leads to tas}diq (consent) and from tas}diq it
comes to the reality (tah}qiq) and from the reality it grows the
knowledge of Him. From the knowledge of Him it appears the compliance to what
He invited to and form the compliance, it takes place the ascension to Him and
from the ascension to Him, it happens the relation with Him and from the
relation with Him it appears the clearness, and from the clearness it turns up
the confusion and from the confusion it losses the clearness and from the
looseness of the clearness, it cuts off the making of the attribute of Him and
from this state, it leads to the reality of His existence and from the reality
of His existence it falls into the reality of witnesses by the extinction of
His existence. From the extinction of His existence His existence becomes clear
and from the clearness of his existence He is removed from His attributes, from
this removal He present with His totality. Therefore He is present in absent
and absent in present. He had been present on the way He is not being at
present and He is not being at present in the way He has been present. He is He
after being not He and He is present in present after He is present in absent.[17]
The above mentioned identification
of tawh}id demonstrates haw al-Junaid leaves the speculative argument
and moves to the mystical experience in the way to know God. To know God
according to al-Juhaid is to be with Him and not to think about the proof of
His existance. However al-Junaid is not like the Ibah}iyah, a group of the S{ufis
who believes that their love God leads them to be union with Him and in this
state whatever they do, they do it on the basis of love and therefore it has no
relation with the Islamic rules.[18]
According to al-Junaid the state of union with the Divine does not mean the
love as the basis allows someone to break the Shari‘ah rule that God has set up
for the community. Contrarily the closer a person to God, the more the person
conform to the God’s rule. The mystical spiritualism thought by al-Junaid is a
kind of the combination of the idea of unity with God and the obeying the
Islamic rules.[19]
Muh}ammad
Abu H{amid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) is regarded as the defender of the Ahl
al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah who synthesizes[20]
Islamic thoughts and movements and puts S{ufism in the middle between theology
and law. We find him in his Tahafut al-Falasifah opposed the theologians
and the philosophers who hold the opinion that the universe is eternal and that
it exists through the causality. In contras he maintains the position that God
creates this universe. [21]
Al-Ghazali’s critic of the theory of the eternity of the universe is intended
to protect the Qur’anic teaching concerning the omnipotent of God and to show
the limit of the area of rationalism. Furthermore al-Ghazali introduce the
mystical experience as the alternative to the speculative theology in the way
to know God. In his Mishkat al-Anwar
al-Ghazali defines the tawh}id as follows:
They who know Allah after they arrive at
the realm of reality agree upon that they do not see in this existence save the
One who is the True. Nonetheless, some people to be in this state they step it
through the systematic knowledge. Many other arrive at the situation by their
intuitions, and then the multiplicity totally disappears and they sank into the
really unique then their mind exhausted and they become like the one who is
astonished and they have no more power to remember anyone save Allah and even
to remember themselves. There is nothing in their mind but Allah, they really
get drunk and they loosed the rational abily some of them say: “I am the true”,
while other says: ‘the glory is I, haw great is I’. If this condition happens
to someone is called fana’ (obliteration of the self). But the true is
extinction of the extinction because he is extinct of his extinction… This
state to whom experiencing is metaphorically called ittih}ad and in
reality it is called tauh}id.[22]
The
description of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama‘ah shows that it stands in
the middle way of the two extremes. It works to accommodate the conflicting
ideas and it very flexible in expression. This attitude affects the political
ideology as will be discussed below.
B.The Political
Theory of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama`’ah
As Muslims believe in the divine origin of government, for them the foundation
from which all discussion of the government starts is the law of God, the shari`ah.
Being the law of God, theoretically the shari`‘a is pre-existing and eternal.
Further it also represents the absolute good and is prior the community and the
state as well. Based on this consideration we find no Muslim political theory
asks the question why the state exists.[23]
For Muslim the existence of the state is something has been taken for granted.
Then the starting point is the assumption that rights and obligations are
determined and revealed by God and therefore God is the ultimate sovereignty.
However the problem does not end to this point. There is a constant dilemma
that Muslims have to deal, namely the gape between the reality and the
ideal. As H.R. Gibb mentioned the Ahl
al-Sunna wa’l-Jama‘a’s political theory is an attempt to reconcile the problem
of maintaining the ideal and in the same time still being historical.[24]
Muslim political
theorists along their history were wrestling to accommodate the current problem
with what is considered as the Islamic values on the system of government.
These are true as shown in the case of Al-Ash‘ari and the others. In the
attempt to confront the Khawarij and the Shi‘a doctrine on imamate, in al-Ibanah
‘an Us}ul al-Diyanah, al-Ash‘ari devoted a chapter to discuss the
controversial issues concerning the imamate of the Khulafa’ al-Rashidun, the
first four rightly guided Caliphs. He defended the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna
wal-Jama’a on the legality of the imamate of Abu Bakr al-S{idq by arguing that
the earlier Muslim community to whom al-Qur’an has praised as the good society
had made him their imam and called him as the lieutenant of the Apostle of God.
If the imamate of Abu Bakr has been accepted then the position of ‘Umar ibn
al-Khat}t}ab as the successor of Abu Bakr should be approved. The reason is,
said al-Ash‘ari, Abu Bakr himself had appointed him as his successor and then
it was authorized by the consensus of the Muslim community. Next, ‘Uthman ibn
‘Affan replaced the position of ‘Umar through the election committed by the
committee assigned by ‘Umar. ‘Ali ibn Abi T{alib then became the Imam through
the election of the community. To support his argument beside this historical
fact, al-Ash‘ari cited a Prophetic tradition to the effect that the caliphate
would be lasted until 30 years, and this time was the same period of that time
in which these four above-mentioned Caliphs were in power.[25]
By asserting the legality of the earlier four caliphs, al-Ash‘ari was
refuting the Shi‘a’s claim that the only true Imam is ‘Ali and his descendent.
Besides, he also was rejecting the Khawarij who did not acknowledge the imamate
of ‘Ali after the arbitration. It clear that what motivated al-Ash‘ari to
defend the legality of the imamate of four caliphs is to keep the unity of
Muslim community against the minority group who tried to divide them by
challenging the ideology Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘a. Furthermore he had already
employed two arguments in defending his position; firstly he based his position
on the authority of the revelation, and secondly he consider the consensus of
the community is a decisive factor for the establishment of imamate.
The scholar of the next generation who follows the step of al-Ash‘ari is
al-Baqillani. He was born in Basra then spent most of his time in Baghdad except
for a short time when he held post as qad}i outside the Capital. One of
his work is al-Tamhid fi radd ‘ala al-Mulh}idat al-Mu‘at}t}ala wal-Rafid}a
wal-Khawarij in which elaborates his theory on the imamate and as the title
of the book indicates, he argues against those who refute the Ahl al-Sunna
wal-Jama‘a’s doctrine, especially the Shi‘i\a. In his view, the functions of
the Imam were to defend the umma, Muslim community against its enemies,
(ii) to restrain oppression and redress grievances, (iii) to enforce and exact
the punishment laid down by law (al-h}udud), (iv) to divide the revenues
derived from conquest (fay’), among the Muslims, and (v) to make safe
the pilgrimage. These were the importance duties of the Imam, should he fail to
carry out one of them, the umma
has the right to remind him and then to exact from his duty. [26]
In his attempt to defend the earlier four caliphs, al-Baqillani refused
the Shi‘a doctrine of the designation (nas}s}) and argued that the Imam
is established in office by testamentary designation (‘ahd) or election
(ikhtiyar) by the ahl al-h}ill wal-‘aqd (those who loose and
bind). He affirmed, however, that such an election is also valid even though it
is contracted by a single man qualified to be among those ‘who loosen and bind’
on behalf of the person fitted for the imamate, but he stipulate that a group
of Muslims must be present to witness the bay‘a when it is given and
make it publicly known. It seems that this is to counter the Shi’a’s doctrine
that there had been a secrete designation. It is also to guard against the
dangers of the secret appointment of a new caliph by a military usurper, a very
real danger when he was writing.[27]
As
mentioned earlier the umma has the right to establish a man possessing
the qualities in the imamate but it does not have the right to invalidate the
contract, except in the case of circumstances, which would themselves lead to
the forfeiture of the imamate. In selecting an imam, the umma
should make sure that he is the ‘most excellent’ (al-afd}al) but if
there was a disagreement over who was the most excellent while the danger of
civil strife and disturbance is threatening, it was lawful to elect the less
excellent (al-mafd}ul).[28]
It is not likely that this principle was adopted from the Zaydi sect, and then
it becomes one of the important doctrines among the Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah.[29]
In the case that after the establishment of the Imam the ‘most excellent’ is
discovered, al-Baqillani is of the opinion that this is not a legitimate reason
for the forfeiture of the imamate by the ‘less excellent’.[30]
This provision shows that he was refuting the Khawarij and the Shi‘a who both
of them demanded the replacement of the ‘less excellent’ by the most excellent’
as soon as the later be discovered.
As far as the case of the forfeiture
of the imamate is concerned, al-Baqillani limited to only three circumstances
that led an Imam should step down from the office. The first has to do with the
looseness of probity by reasons of ether of heresy injustice or sin, though he
admits that the majority of the jurists did not accept the loss of probity as
reason for forfeiture and maintained instead that the Imam should be enjoined
to return to the good and simply disobeyed in whatever led to a revolt against
God. The second has relation with the physical and mental infirmities, should
the problems affect the inability of the imam to carry out the duties
and responsibilities of his office he is to be replaced. To these shortcomings
were included, madness and lose of faculties; deafness and muteness; and old
age; and it were as such that the imam was no longer able to perform the
duties for which he was elected to carry out them. The last is concerned with
the loss of liberty through the captivity or being in prisoner by the enemies.
Concerning the last circumstance, A.K.S Lambton assumes that it might be that
al-Baqillani was thinking the possibility of a Fatimid occupation of Bagdad. He
does not, however, discuss the problem of the Caliph being placed under
restrain by his auxiliaries, although the case had been happened. But he does
admit that there were, an irregular situation created by for and constrain (qahr
wa ghalaba). In such cases he is of the opinion that the imamate was irregular
and therefore obedience to it is not obligatory. Should the followers of the
true religion (ahl al-haqq) take action and establish an imam from among themselves, then he was the
true imam and obedience to him was obligatory upon the community.
Al-Baqillani rejects to admit the
legality of the existence of two or more imams at one and the same time.
Here we find al-Baqillani implicitly denies the Fatimid claim and the Umayyad
of Spin. In the case of the umma being divided into rival schools of law
and each claimed to have sole authority over the imamate, al-Baqillani states
that if their differences were over the shar‘i matters and they were all
followers of the true religion, priority in time was the decisive factor and he
who was the first appointed was the valid imam; he should be obeyed and
who refused him obedience would be rebels and should be fought. If, on the
other hand, the issues over which they differed were such as to render a person
who held such views and infidel (kafir), a sinner (fasiq) or errant
(dalal), then the contract for the imamate belong to those of them who
followed the true religion (ahl al-haq) and no one else.[31]
Al-Baqillani, like other Ahl
al-Sunna wal-Jama‘a scholars, insisted that the imam should be of the
Quraisy descent and argued against the Khawarij and the Shi‘a doctrines. To the
Khawarij any Muslim, provided he was upright and could carry out the duties of
the imam in a fit way, might become imam. While to the Shi‘a the
claim of the imamate is limited to the house of Ali only. The other qualities demanded
of the imam by al-Baqillani were the knowledge, because he had to judge
righteously and must therefore know what is lawful and unlawful and because he
appointed the qadis and must therefore know as much as they did and
more; good judgment and courage in warfare and the management of the armies
because it was his duty to protect the umma from the enemies, and good
judgment and resolution in administrative matters because he had to manage the
affairs of the umma. The imam should remain unmoved by emotion in
the execution of his tasks; but there was no need for him to have secret
knowledge or to be an exceptional character.[32]
Al-Baqillani implicitly rejected the Shi‘a claim that the imam must
immune from sin (ma‘sum) and that Ali’s claim to the caliphate was based
on his possession of the secret knowledge.
To al-Baqillani the imam was
simply charged with the enforcement of the shari‘a, which preceded him
and to which he was subject. This did not impose a requirement of immunity. He
acted on behalf of the community and was a wakil or gerent. He was
supported and led towards the good by tradition, which reminded him constantly
of the obligations with which he was charged, made him circumspect, and caused
justice to shrine in all his acts and led him towards good. This was what was
expected of him, this was what he was invested with, and this justified his
elevation to office. He did not have to be infallible any more than did those
whom he, in turn, delegate authority.[33]
As long as his behaviour was in accordance
with the shari‘a it was the duty of the community to support him. But if
he deviated from the shari‘a it was for them to summon him to right behavior
and if he committed acts, which called for his deposition, he was to be deposed
and allegiance given to another.[34]
Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qahir ibn Tahir
al-Baghdadi, like al-Baqillani, paid a serious attention to the problem of the
imamate. In the Usul al-Din, al-Baghdadi elaborated his thought on the
caliphate and argued against the Khawarij the Shi‘a, and the Mu‘tazila. Among
the questions of the imamate that al-Baghdadi consider as a serious problem are
as follows: (i) the necessity of the imamate (ii) the circumstances of the
appointment of the imamate (iii) the number of the imams at any one
time, (iv) the race and tribe of the imam, (v) the conditions required
for the imamate,(vi) the impeccability of imam, (vii) the means whereby
the imam is established in office, (viii) the appointment of the imam
after the death of Muhammad, (ix) inheritance and testament in regard to
imamate.
Al-Baghdadi holds that the imamate is necessary, saying:
There is disagreement as to the necessity of the
imamate and the necessity of seeking out and setting up the imam. The general
body of the Ahl al-Sunna, both the theologians and the jurists together with
the Shi‘a, the Khawarij and most of the Mu‘tazila, hold the imamate to be
compulsory, that to set up the imam and to submit to him are necessary and this
is the essential for the Muslims to have an imam to execute their ordinances,
to enforce legal penalties, direct their armies, marry of their widows, and
divide the revenues amongst them. They are opposed only by a handful of Qadariyya,
such as Abu Bakr al-Asmm, who asserted that if people were refrain from mutual
injury they would have no need of an imam, and Hisam al-Fuwati, who held that
an imam was necessary if only when the community was united in the way of
right, but not at time of civil war. Those who hold the imamate to be
compulsory obligation disagree as to the reason for its necessary. Those of
Mu‘tazilah who maintain the doctrine of divine bounty (luft) assert it
to be compulsory only because it is divine bounty for the maintenance of revealed
laws. Al-Ash‘ari argued that the imamate is itself an ordinance of the revealed
Law, and that though it can be demonstrated by reason that subordination to it
is admissible, only the authority of the Revelation knows the necessity of it.
Furthermore, the Companions of the Prophet were unanimous on its necessity, and
in view of their unanimity no regard is to be paid to the opposition of
isolated individuals. Again, the shari‘a contains ordinances, which none can
carry out except an imam or a governor appointed by him, such as enforcing the
legal penalties against freemen, giving in marriage women who have no
guardians, etc. Even if the community were to act with perfect mutual equity,
as al-As}amm postulate, yet it would still require someone to guard the property
of the orphans and lunatics, to dispatch troops against enemies, and to carry
out many other functions that only the imam or a person appointed by the imam
can perform.[35]
In regard to the circumstance of appointing an imam al-Baghdadi was referring
to doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama‘a who “assert the necessity of
appointing an imam in every circumstance in which there is no imam, and of rendering
obedience to him if he is visible”. Further al-Baghdadi said that “in the
opposition to the belief of various Shi‘i sects in the continued existence of
concealed imams, the Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama‘a do not admit that there should
ever come upon man a time in which there is an imam who must obeyed but who is
concealed”.[36]
In the case of the simultaneous existence of the imams,
al-Baghdadi held different opinion of those of al-Baqillani. He asserts the
possibility of the simultaneous existence of two imams provided their
territories were separated by sea. With detail explanation he states:
There is
disagreement amongst those who hold for the necessity of the imamate as to the
number of the imams at any one time. Our associates maintain that it is not
permissible that there should be two imams to whom obedience is obligatory at
once and the same time, but that the imamate of one only is duly contracted at
that time and the remainder are under his standard. Further, should they come forth
against him for no cause that calls for his deposition, they are rebels, unless
there be between them a sea which prevents the supporters of each one from
gaining the victory over the others, in which case it is lawful for the people
of each of the two lands to make a contract of imamate with one of the inhabitants
of that region.[37]
Al-Baghdadi was in agreement with the Rafida who held a
doctrine to the effect that there cannot be two ‘speaking’ imams at the same
time, but he opposed them when they assert that it is still possible that there
may be one speaking imam and one ‘silent’ imam. He also rejected the
Karramiya’s idea of the lawfulness of two or more imams at one time. The reason
is that if it were lawful to have two or more imams, it would be lawful for
every person qualified for the imamate to exercise, each one, independent rule
in his own province or tribe- a states of affairs which would lead to complete
voiding of the obligation of the imamate.[38]
Concerning the tribe of the imam al-Baghdadi
demanded that it should be from the Quraisy, stating that “ours associates
maintain that the shari‘a has prescribes the attribution of the imamate to
Quraisy and has indicate that Quraisy will never fail to produce some member of
the tribe who is qualified for the imamate”. Therefore, he came to the conclusion
that “it is not lawful to set up an imam for the whole community from any other
group.” Further, he presented the argument of the Ahl al-Sunnah for the limitation
of the imamate to Quraisy, and states that it refers to the word of the
Prophet, “The imams are from the Quraisy.” It was in deference to this
tradition, said al-Baghdadi, that the Muslims of Medina surrendered to the
Succession to Quraisy on the occasion of the election of Abu Bakr; wherefore
this Tradition and Consensus of the Companions of the Prophet furnish two
proofs that khilafa is not within the competence of sny person other then
Quraisy, and no heed to be paid to the disagreement of those who oppose the consensus
after it has been established.[39]
Concerning the conditions required for the imamate,
al-Baghdadi asserted that the imam should fulfill four important
attributes. Referring to the doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunnah, he stated, “Our
associates hold that one who is competent to occupy the imamate must posses the
four following qualities”. The first is knowledge, the minimum requirement
being that he should reach the degree of mujtahids in regard to the thing
lawful and unlawful and all other ordinances; the second is probity of character
and piety, the minimum incumbent upon him in this respect being that he should
be one of whose witness is acceptable before a qadi, and the time both of
witnessing the act and of giving evidence thereon; and third one is good
judgment in the various functions of government and administrative capacity, in
that he knows the ranks and classes of (maratib) of his subjects and
keeps them in their proper ranks, not seeking aid in great matters of state
from junior officers, and also an acquaintance with the organization of
warfare; and the last is being the descent from the Quraisy.[40]
The question of the impeccability
had been considered serious problem, but al-Baghdadi does not discuss yet the
way to depose an unjust imam. He makes clear in his discussion on the
impeccability of the imam that the umma was behind the imam.
However he did not explain the procedure to translate the power of the umma
into action and how the umma could transfer their allegiance from an imam
who went astray to another imam without provoking civil war. He states
as follows:
Our
associates hold, in common with the majority of the Community, that sinlessness
is the conditions of prophethood and the transmission of Revelation, but not
one of the conditions of the imamate. All that is stipulated in regard to the
later is outward probity of character; consequently, when the outward behavior
of imam remains in congruence with the shari‘a his tenure of the imamate is in
regular order. When he deviates from this standard, the Community has to choose
between two courses of action in regard to him: either to turn him from his
error towards the right, or to turn away from him and to give allegiance to
another. Their action in relation to him is on the same footing as his action
in relation to his substitutes, judges, officers and couriers; if they deviate
from his directions he sets them right or dispenses with them. The Shi‘a on the
other hand hold unanimously to the necessity of the sinlessness of the imam as
a general principle, though they disagree on this claim in detail… Finally, if
the sinlessness of the imam is postulated, there must be postulated also the
sinlessness of his substitutes and assistants; and if every one of these were
sinless they would have no need of sinless imam to keep them on the highway of
the right.[41]
Concerning the means to establish the imam al-Baghdadi states,
“there is disagreement also on the method whereby the imamate is established,
whether it is by designation or by election.” He said that “the vast generality
of our associates and of the Mu‘tazilah, the Khawarij and the Najjariyya hold
that the method of its establishment is by election on the part of the
Community, through the exercise of responsible judgment (ijtihad) by
those who is fitted in the office.”
However, “ its establishment by designation would have been permissible,
but in fact no designation of any individual is known to have been made in
regard to it, and therefore the Community had recourse to selection for it.”
“When the establishment of the imamate by the method of election is accepted
by us as valid,” al-Baghdadi went on to say that “there is a further disagreement
among partisans of elections as to the number of actual electors of imam.
Al-Ash‘ari held that the imamate is validly contracted on behalf of one who is
fitted for it by contract of single pious man who is qualified to exercise ijtihad,
when he does so in favor of one fitted for it, when he does so, then it is
incumbent on the remainder to render the obedience. If, however, the contract
is made by one who exercise ijtihad but is an evildoer, or by learned and pious
person in favor of one who is unfitted for it, such an imamate is not validly
contracted, just as a marriage can validly contracted by a single guardian of
legal probity but is not valid contracted by an evildoer, in view of this
school.”
Meanwhile he found that “Sulaiman ibn Jarir, the Zaydi and certain of the
Mu‘tazila maintain that the least number of those who may make the contract of
the imamate is two persons of piety and ijtihad, just as the contract of
the marriage is not established by lest then two witnesses.” Al-Qalanisi and
those of our associate who follow him propose another possibility. Al-Baghdadi
states “they hold that the contract of imamate is validly made by the ‘ulama’
of the Community who are present at residence of the imam, irrespective of
their number.”
In the case of “if one or more make contract of imamate in favor of one
person while others make a contract in favor of another, and each of the two persons
is fitted for it”, to al-Baghdadi, “then the prior contract is valid; but if
the two contracts are made simultaneously or it is not known which is the
prior, the contract must be renewed in favor of one of them or some other
person, and God knows best.”
In regard to
the case of the imamate after the death of the Prophet al-Baghdadi defended the
imamate of Abu Bakr and rejected the claim of the Shi‘a. On the transmission of
the imamate by inheritance or testament he writes,
There is a disagreement as to
whether the imamate passes by inheritance, but every one who maintains the
imamate of Abu Bakr holds that it does not pass by inheritance… There is
disagreement also as to the legality of bequeathing the imamate by testament to
a specified person who is fitted for it. Our associates, together with some of
the Mu‘tazilah, the Murji‘a and the Khawarij, hold that the bequest of imamate
is valid and lawful but not obligatory. If the imam bequeaths it to one who is
fitted for it, it is obligatory on the Community to execute his testament, as
Abu Bakr bequeathed it to ‘Umar, and the Companions of the Prophet unanimously
agreed to ‘Umar’s succession to the office. But if the imam leaves it to
consultation (shura) among certain persons after his death, this too is
lawful, as was done by ‘Umar.
Another scholar who wrote Islamic
political theory was Al-Mawardi. He was born in Basra and died in Baghdad at
the age of 86 in the year of 1058 M. This scholar wrote al-Ah}kam al-S{ult}aniya
in part the attempt to assert the authority of the Abbasid caliphs against the
Buwaihid emirs who were in effective control of the state. The moment was
auspicious in that Sultan Mah}mud of Ghazna, though in unchallenged power over
Persia, raised the prestige of the Caliph in Baghdad by professing the loyalty
to the house of Abbas. Al-Mawardi’s treatise was intended as the theoretical
basis for the delimitation of the spheres of authority between the caliph, in
charge of religious affairs, and the emir, in effective control of civil
administration on the basis of negotiated agreement.
As shown in
the preface of the treatise, legal speculation is not important to al-Mawardi.
He was not concerned with a discussion of the underlying ideas of the
government. To him these subjects were given and not a matter for intellectual
speculation. He was very much concerned with the ordinances for those who set
in authority. Asserting that the rules of the government were from God, he
wrote,
Praise be
to God who disclose for the guideposts (ma‘alim) of religion and
bestowed upon us as a favor al-Qur’an (al-Kitab al-Mubin); who established for
us ordinances (al-ah}kam) and distinguished for us forbidden and
unlawful things, which He had imposed on the world the ultimate reference (h}akaman),
by which the wellbeing of creation (mas}alih al-khalq) was established
and the bases of the truth (qawa‘id al-h}aq) were made firm; who left to
those in charge of affairs (wulat al-umur) [those areas] in which they
can apply their own judgment and [such decrees] as will be necessary for the
management of their affairs (al-tadbir).[42]
It is clear from this provision that
to al-Mawardi, the rules of the government were originated from God and his
concern is not to speculate it but rather to explain them to those who are
elected as the imam. This is the reason why he wrote his treatise. We
find him stating,
Since the ordinances of government have a special claim upon [attention]
of those set in authority, and since their admixture with all [manner of other]
ordinances debars these persons from making a through study of them –not to
speak of their preoccupation with policy and administration- I have devoted a
book exclusively to this subject. In so doing I have compiled with the command
of one to whom it is obligatory to render obedience, in order that he may know
the views of the jurists as to those ordinances which define his rights, that
he may exact them in full, and his duties, that he may perform them in full,
with the object of showing equity in his execution and judgment, and from a
desire to respect the rights of others in his taking and giving.[43]
Al-Mawardi insists in particular on the necessity for the imam as
guaranteeing the existence of the community. To perform this duty the imam
is supported with the authority delegated to him by God and then he alone has
authority to delegate this to the others. Here al-Mawardi asserted that the
caliph is responsible to God and not to the community who had elected him. He
wrote as follows,
God, may His power be exalted, ordained for the community (al-umma) a leader through whom he
provided for the vicegerency of the prophet and through whom He protected the
community (al-milla); and entrusted to his authority (al-siyasa)
so that the management of affairs should proceed [on the basis of] right
religion (din mashru‘) and that there should be unanimity on an opinion
which is followed (ra’y mat}bu‘), and the imamate became the principle
upon which the basis of the community (qawa‘id al-milla) were
established, by which of the wellbeing of the community (mas}alih} al-umma)
was regulated and affairs of general interest (al-umur al-‘amma) were
stable, and from which particular public functions (al-wilayat al-khas}s}a)
emanated. Because of this it is necessary to deal with the rules of the imamate
before any other matter and it is incumbent that whatever concerns it (the
imamate) should precede the consideration of any other religious matter so that
the rules (ah}kam) concerning public functions (al-wilayat) may
be arranged according to their proper categories and similarity of their rules.[44]
Al-Mawardi starts the discussion
on the contract for the imamate by insisting the necessity of the establishment
of imamate, stating, “the imamate is established to replace the prophecy in the
defense of the faith and administration of the world.” Further he said that
according to the ijma‘, the contraction of the imamate to one of the
community who would exercise its functions was necessary and only al-As}amm
differed from this generally held opinion.[45]
Al-Mawardi continued the discussion whether it was necessary by reason or by
the divine law (shar‘). Those who said it was necessary by reason
maintained that this was so because it is in the nature of reasonable men to
submit to themselves to a chief (za‘im), who prevents them from
committing injustices toward each other, and who arbitrates between in the
event of disputes and quarrels, and without a leader men live in anarchy and
lack of constraint in the manner of savages left to themselves. While those who
maintained on the other hand, that it was necessary by divine law held that
this was so because the imam fulfilled certain shar‘i functions. [46]
To al-Mawardi himself, the imamate derives from the shari‘a, stating,
The imam undertake as an act of piety shar‘i affairs,
which it was possible for him not to undertake rationally. Reason does not
impose the necessity of the imamate. All that reason imposes upon every
intelligent person is that should refrain from committing injustices and
severing the bonds of friendship (taqat}u‘) and that he should act
equitablely (toward others) and in accordance with justice; (this thing) he
does by his reason and not by reason of another, but the law (shar‘)
intervened and entrusted affairs to him who is given authority by religion.[47]
On the basis of the Qur’anic verse,
“O you who believe obey God, obey the prophet and those among you in
authority,”[48]
al-Mawardi insisted the obligatory to obey the imam and he says: “He
(God) thus make it an obligatory duty upon us to obey those in authority – they
are the imams who have been appointed over us.”[49]
The duty to obey imam is a compulsory to the believers no matter how the
imam behaves except that he commands them to do the evil thing. To support his
assertion, he quotes the tradition,
Other
governors (wulat) after me will rule over you, the pious according to
their piety and the iniquitous according their inequity. Listen to them and
obey them in everything, which is conformable to the truth. If they are good,
it will be to your benefit and theirs. If they do evil it will be to your
benefit but harmful to them.[50]
After having explained the necessity
of the establishment of the imamate, al-Mawardi went on to discuss the personal
who is fitted to be an imam and who has the authority to set up the imam
in the office. Al-Mawardi lays down certain qualities that are necessary
for the electors. First he requires an elector ‘adala, a state of moral and
religious probity. Secondly, he demands ‘ilm, religious learning, which
would permit an elector to know whether an individual was possessed of the
qualities demanded for imamate, and thirdly judgment and wisdom so that he
would choose whoever was most worthy of the imamate and the best qualified and
knowledgeable in the administration of affairs (tadbir al-mas}alih}).[51]
Among the qualities that al-Mawardi
requires of the imam were ‘adala, (moral probity), ‘ilm (religious learning), so that he could
exercise independent judgmen (ijtihad), physical health that could
perform his duties successfully, judgment necessary for the administration and
management of the affairs of the subjects, bravery to protect Islamic territory
and to undertake jihad against the enemy, and descent from the Quraish.[52]
In line with the idea of the
necessity of the establishment of the imamate, the imam, being the
leader of the Muslim community, had to perform ten public duties. These were of
religious, legal, and military nature and were as follows: (i) to maintain
religion according to fixed principles and what had been established by the
consensus of salaf (the early community); if an innovator appeared or
someone having doubtful opinions deviated from true principles, the imam
must make clear to him the proofs (of religion) and show him what right and
exact from him and apply to him the obligatory penalties and suctions so that
the religion might be protected from disorder and the community from
sinfulness; (ii) to execute judgments (ahkam) between litigants and
settle disputes between contestants, so that justice might be universal and
tyrannical might not commit oppression or the oppressed be weakened (iii) to
protect Islamic territory (al-bayd}a) and what is sacred so that the
people could earn their livelihood and move about freely, safe from risk to
life and property; (iv) to apply the legal penalties so that the prohibitions
of God were not violated and the rights of His servants were preserved from
wastage and destruction; (v) to equip the frontiers with provisions and forces
so that the enemy might not advance by deceit, committing forbidden things or
shed the blood of a Muslim or a mu‘ahid (ally or confederate ); to undertake
jihad against those who refused to embrace Islam after being invited to
do so and to prosecute this until they accepted Islam or entered into a
contract and became dhimmis, so that he might give God his due in
manifesting the superiority of Islam over all other religions (vii) to collect fay’
and s}adaqa (legal alm) according to the prescriptions of the shari‘a
and to distribute them without fear or favour; (viii) to fix stipends (‘at}aya’)
and charges upon treasury without prodigality or parsimony, paying them at the
due time, neither early nor late; (ix) to sake out trusted person (umana’)
and to appoint advisers who were sincere with regard to the offices with which
they were invested and the monies with which they were charged so that offices
and monies might be safe and secure in the hands of capable and trusted
persons; and (x) to oversee affairs personally and to consider affair carefully
so that he might undertake the administration and protection of the community,
not relying upon a delegation of the authority, thanks to which he could occupy
himself with pleasure and devotion, but recognizing that trusted man might be unfaithful
and counselor might act dishonestly.[53]
When the imam had performed the duties set out above he had the right to
demand from the people their obedience and support as long as his own situation
did not change.[54]
Al-Mawardi argued on the necessity
of personal supervision of affairs for the imam by citing the Qura’anic
verse, “O David we have place thee as (our) khalifa on earth. Judge
between the people with truth and do not follow thine own desire lest it cause
thee to err from the path of God.”[55]
To insist the responsibility of the imam for the people entrusted to his
care, he quotes the saying of the Prophet, “Each one of you is a shepherd and
each one is responsible for his folk.”[56]
Al-Mawardi argued on the necessity of personal supervision of affairs for
the imam by citing the Qura’anic verse, “O David we have place thee as
(our) khalifa on earth. Judge between the people with truth and do not follow
thine own desire lest it cause thee to err from the path of God.”[57]
To insist the responsibility of the imam for the people entrusted to his
care, he quotes the saying of the Prophet, “Each one of you is a shepherd and
each one is responsible for his folk.”[58]
Al-Mawardi then discussed two forms
the imamate succession. He states that
the imamate might be contracted in two ways: by election by the ahl al-h}all
wal-‘aqd, or by testamentary designation. To justify the method of the
succession the imamate, the jurists including al-Mawardi had to relay on the
narration of the historians. The principle of the election of caliph is thus
based on the historians’ description of the choice of Abu Bakr by five
companions of the Prophet and the choice of ‘Uthman after ‘Umar had laid a
charge on six, including ‘Uthman himself to elect one among their number as his
successor. This choice had to be confirmed by the people. In technical terms,
this means that election takes place by bay‘a, investiture with the electors’
oath of loyalty, to be followed by bay‘a in public, expressing the ijma‘
of the community.[59]
Talking about the forfeiture of the
imamate, al-Mawardi stated there two cases that lead to the succession of the imam
: first loos of probity on part of the imam by reason of evil conduct or
heresy, or secondly, the curtailment or loss of
his liberty.[60]
The later was very problematic case when al-Mawardi was writing. The question
at issue was could the caliph still be an imam when he was himself under
the control of other. This was not a theoretical discourse; the Abbasid caliphate
had been under the control of the auxiliaries for about a century. Al-Mawardi
answers the problem and discuses it as follows. If the usurper, he states, acts
in conformity to the ordinances of the faith and requirements of justice, the
anomalous situation may be allowed to stand for fear of prejudice to the community
(jama‘a); but if not, it becomes the duty of the imam to call to
his aid those who will restrain the usurper’s hand and put an end to this
domination.[61]
Another scholar who is widely recognized to have made a contribution to
the development of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah’s political theory, is
al-Ghazali. He is known to have written many books that covered almost all
aspects of Islamic studies. He discusses politics in his work: al-Mstaz}hiri,
al-Iqtis}ad fi al-I’tiqad and Ihya’
al-Ulum al-Din. When he was writing his works on politics he faced the
situation of civil war and disturbance leading to disorder and anarchy and he
preoccupied with first the relationship of the caliph and the sultan and
secondly the internal threats to the community posed by the Bat}inis.
In al-Mustaz}hiri he treats only the imam. because this
work was composed at the request of the caliph primarily to refute the Bat}inis.
However it is not only a mirror of the princes but also partly a juristic
treatise. The propose of the work was to show that al-Mustaz}hir was the
legitimate imam, the representative of God and that he had acceded to
the imamate in conditions conformable with the divine law, and that all men
owed him obedience and assistance.
Al-Ghazali maintains that the
imamate was necessary both by reason and revelation and details the conditions
required for the investiture of the imam and the qualities demanded for
him. All legal power was delegated by him and no public function was valid
unless emanating from him. He was the successor of the prophet and his mission
was to watch over religion and presided over the affairs of the world. The
continuity of religious law thus rested on him, on his personal qualities and
the mode of his designation. Al-Ghazali was, however, a realist and recognized
a fact as they were. In al-Iqt}is}ad
fi al-I‘tiqad he writes,
There are those who hold the imamate
is dead, lacking as it does the required qualifications. But no substitute can
be found for it. What then? Are we to give up obeying the law? Shall we dismiss
the qad}is, declare all authority to be valueless, cease the marrying
and pronounce the acts of those in high places to be invalid at all points,
leaving the population to live in sinfulness? Or shall we continue as we are,
recognizing that the imamate really exists and that all acts of the
administration are valid, given the circumstances of the acts of the
necessities of actual moment? The concessions made by us are not spontaneous
but necessity makes lawful to feed on the death animal: still, it be worse to
die of hunger. Of those that contend that the caliphate is death for ever and
irreplaceable, we should like to ask: which is to be preferred, anarchy and
stoppage of social life for lack of a properly constituted authority, or
acknowledgement of the existing power, whatever it be? Of these two
alternatives the jurist cannot but choose the later.[62]
In al-Iqtis}ad fi al-I‘tiqad, al-Ghazali
insisted the basis of the imamate on both shari‘ah and reason. He bases
his argument that the establishment of imamate is obligatory by the shari‘a
first on the ijma‘ of the community, which by his time it had become a
source of shari‘a by its own right. Secondly, al-Ghazali bases the proof
of the shari‘a obligatory on the deduced will of the Prophet, contending
that the source of the consensus of the community was also to be found in the
will of the Prophet. The prophet’s purpose had been to the formal establishment
of Islam. To secure these end, both the live and livelihood had to be protected.
The appointment of the imam was therefore obligatory. Al-Ghazali also
pointes out that only through the performance formal religious observance could
the bliss of hereafter be achieved. He thus derive the authority of for the
institution of the imamate form the community, while the consensus was
evidence of the fact that what the community had approved was provided for in
the shari‘a.[63]
political theory that Al-Ghazali opposes Mu‘tazila doctrine
[1]
Said Agiel Siradj. Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’ah dalam Lintas Sejarah.
(Yogyakarta: LKPSM, 1998) p. 20.
[2]Marsahal
Hodgson. The Venture of Islam. (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1975). Vol. I., p. 214. W. Montgomery Watt. Islamic Philosophy and
Theology. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992), p. 1.
[3]Ibid. pp. 215-216.
[4]Ibid.
p. 217.
[5]Ibid.
[6]
The Qur’a>n: (al-H{ajj:54)
[7]
Hodgson. The Venture., pp. 248-249.
[8]
Abu Hasan al-Ash’ari. Kitab al-Luma’. 68-69.
[9]
The Qur’a>n S. VI: 96.
[10]
The Qur’a>n S. II: 20.
[11]
The Qur’a>n S. XVI: 46
[12]
The Qur’a>n S. IV: 83
[13]
Al-Ma>turidi>. Kita>b al-Tawh}i>d. (Bayrut: Da>r al-Mashriq,
1982), p.229.
[14]
The Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jama>‘ah is well set out by Wael Hallaq in his
Islamic Legal Theory: An Introduction to Sunni> Us}u> al-Fiqh (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999).
[15]
N.J. Coulson. A History of Islamic Law. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 1964), p. 106.
[16]Muh}ammd
ibn Idri>s al-Sha>fi‘i>’. al-Risa>lah. Ed. Ah}mad
Sha>kir. Beirut: Da>r al-Fikr, n.d. trans. With introduction, notes and
appendices by Madji Khadduri. See also Ahmad Hakim. “Muh}ammd ibn Idri>s
al-Sha>fi‘i>’ and His Role in the Development of Islamic Legal Theory”,
M.A. thesis, Mc. Gill University 1992; and N.J. Coulson. A History of
Islamic Law. pp. 53-61.
[17]
Al-Ima>m Abu> al-Qa>sim al-Junaid. Risa’il al-Junaid, ed.
‘Ali> H{asan ‘Abd al-Qa>dir. (Cairo: Bar‘i> Wajday, 1988) p. 58.
[18]
‘Ali> H{asan ‘Abd al-Qa>dir. “Introduction” in Al-Ima>m Abu>
al-Qa>sim al-Junaid. Risa’il al-Junaid, ed. ‘Ali> H{asan ‘Abd
al-Qa>dir. (Cairo: Bar‘i> Wajday, 1988) p. د
[19]
al-Junaid. Risa’il al-Junaid, p.62.
[20]
Fazlur Rahman. Islam. (Chicago: The university of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 140.
[21]
Muh}ammad Abu H{a>mid al-Ghaza>li>. (Bairut: Da>r al-Fikr, 1927)
p.29.
[22]Muh}ammad
Abu H{a>mid al-Ghaza>li>. Mishka>t al-Anwa>r . ed. Abu>
al-A‘la al-‘Afifi> (Cairo: al-Hai’ah al-‘Ammah al-Mis}ri>yah
lil-Kita>b, 1964) pp. 57-58.
[23]Ann
K.S. Lambton. State and Government in Medieval Islam. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
p.xiv.
[24]
HAR Gibb. “Al-Ma>wardi>’s theory of caliphate” in Stanford J Show and
Willaim R Polk eds. Studies on the Civilation of Islam (London, 1962) p.
148.
[25]Abu
Hasan al-As‘ari. Al-Iba>na ‘an Usul al-Diyana. (Bairut: Dar al-kitab
al-Arabi, 1990) p. 146-150.
[26]Al-Baqillani.
al-Tamhid fi Radd ‘ala al-Mulhidat al-Muattala wal-Rafida wal-Khawarij (Cairo: 1947) pp. 185-186.
[27]Lambton.
State and Government. p.74.
[28]Al-Baqillani.
al-Tamhid., p. 193 ff.
[29]Lambton.
State and Government. p.74.
[30]
Al-Baqillani. al-Tamhid., p. 180.
[31]Ibid.
p.181.
[32]Ibid.
[33]Ibid.
182.
[34]Ibid.
[35]
Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qahir ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi. Usul al-Din (Istanbul: Matba‘ah
al-Dawlah, 1928) p. 270-271.
[36]Al-Baghdadi.
Usul al-Din. P. 273.
[37]Al-Baghdadi.
Usul al-Din., p. 274.
[38]Ibid., p. 274-275.
[39]Ibid.,
p. 276
[40]Ibid.,
p. 277..
[41]Ibid.,
p. 278-9; Lambton, State and
Government., p. 80-1.
[42]Abu
al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mawardi. Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniya. (Bairut:
Da>r al-Fikr, 1960) p. 3.
[43]
Ibid.
[44]
Ibid., p. 3.
[45]
Ibid., p. 5.
[46]
Ibid.
[47]Ibid.
[48]al-Qur’a>n,
IV: 59.
[49]
al-Ma>wardi>. Al-Ahka>m al-S}ult}aniya., p. 5.
[50]Ibid.
[51]Ibid.,p.
5-6; Lambton. State and Government., p. 89.
[52]Ibid.
[53]Ibid.
, pp. 15-16.
[54]Ibid.,
p. 17.
[55]Al-Qur’a>n,
XXXVIII: 26.
[56]Al-Ma>wardi>.
Al-Ah}ka>m al-S}ult}}a>iya., p. 16.
[57]Al-Qur’a>n,
XXXVIII: 26.
[58]Al-Ma>wardi>.
Al-Ahka>m al-S}ult}aniya., p. 16.
[59]Ibid.
, pp. 6-7.
[60]Ibid.,
19.
[61]Ibid.,
p. 20.
[62]Al-Ghaza>li>.
[63]Al-Ghaza>li>.
0 Response to " ISLAM AND POLITICS, THEORY AND PRACTICES ACCORDING TO AHL AL-SUNNA WA’L JAMA‘A"
Post a Comment