Islam's political theory






By Hans Zomer

January, 1998

OneWorld Europe, Islamabad

related article: Europe and the Muslim world




Islam is often referred to as "more than a religion"; it is a way of life: 
religion, politics,
judicial system and social norms in one. It is said that, because the Prophet 
Muhammad was
the religious as well as the worldly leader of the first Islamic state, the 
worldly and the
religious cannot be
separated according to Islam.


However, Islam has not been so unified when it comes to
politics. In fact, it has produced several interpretations of Power and 
Authority, the crucial
concepts in political theory. 



Power and Authority; the theories


The Quran itself clearly distinguishes between Power and Authority: Authority, 
the source of
all legitimate use of power, is indivisible and lies with Allah. 
But Power, the possibility of governing a group of people, is less clearly 
defined. In fact,
there seems to be a distinction between legitimate and real power. While in 
Muslim societies
real power has been in the hands of groups as diverse as priests, tribal 
chiefs, kings and kalifs
(who had power based on their economic, ideological or military strength),
legitimate power, which is based on the ultimate authority of Allah, can only 
be in the hands
of the Prophet Muhammad.


The key question, then, is who has legitimate power after the death of the 
Prophet. Islam has
produced four responses to this question.



I. The Medina Model


The Medina model is the example as set by the first Islamic society, led by the 
Prophet
Muhammad. In this society, the Prophet held legitimate power, but a part of the 
de facto
power was firmly in the hands of the tribal chiefs. Medina was a theocracy, 
which tried to
keep worldly and religious power in the same hands.


II. The Umma Model.


The Umma model is associated with the Khariji sect within Islam. According to 
this concept,
legitimate power resides with the religious community, the people themselves. 
Thus, the
people should elect its own leader. Eventhough this concept is very similar to 
Western ideas
on democracy and nation-states, it has not had as much influence as the two main
interpretations (ie. Sunnism and Shiism).



III. The Caliph Model


The Califph Model is the political theory of Sunni Islam. According to this 
concept, a
successor to the Prophet has to be appointed; a Caliph. Contrary to Shiite 
Islam (the Imam
Model), this successor is elected by (representatives of) the Muslim community. 




IV. The Imam Model


The Imam Model is the Shiite concept of legitimate power. Like the Caliph, the 
Imam is seen
as a successor to the Prophet Muhammad. But rather than elected, the Imam is 
appointed to
lead the Muslim community because he is a direct descendant from the Prophet's 
family.


The Caliphate Model has in common with the Imam model that legitimate power 
resides with
a replacement for the Prophet (ie. the Imam or Caliph) and that de facto power 
(the
Sultanate) can be held by someone quite different. Both Sunni and Shiite Islam 
have
developed a tradition that the worldly, de facto power should be tolerated as 
long as it uphold
the fundamental Islamic principles. 



Power in practice


Theoretically, all Muslims are equal. Contrary to Christianity, there is no 
institutionalised
clergy, with its hierarchy and power patterns. Yet, the "priests" of Islam, the 
ullama, often
have great power and influence in Muslim society.


There are plenty of examples where the worldly powers have tried to legitimise 
themselves by
seeking the approval of the religious leaders (Pakistan is a case in point). 
Sunni Islam lends
itself better for this purpose than Shiite Islam, as for Shiites, in principle, 
every non-Islamic
regime remains
illegitimate. Thus, Shiite Islam is a profoundly opposition- minded religion 
(Within Sunni
Islam, only those decisions that are taken in complete consensus among the 
religious scholars
are binding for the faithful. Compared to Shiite Islam, where each ullama can 
have his own
interpretation of Islam which is binding for those who choose to follow him, 
Sunnism is
therefore less pluralistic). 


Secondly, the "priests" of Islam, the ullama, wield
considerable power in their own right. The ullama are
intermediaries between the worldly powers and the legitimate power (Allah). 
Their
interpretation of Islam has a direct
bearing on the people who attend the mosque, especially in non- Arabic speaking 
countries
where people often don't understand the Quran without assistance. (Shiite 
ullama have
additional powers, as the supreme leader, the Imam, is absent since the 
disappearance of the
twelfth Imam. According to mainstream Shiism, as long as this situation 
continues - i.e. until
the Imam returns - the ullama represent the Imam. Open
"competition" of ideas among the ullama will bring forward the best 
interpretations of the
Quran and Sunna.)



In conclusion:


Not only are there different theories as to who holds
legitimate power, in each Muslim society the balance between authority, 
legitimate power,
real power and power brokers is different. This makes generalisations about 
"Muslim politics" 
- useless and dangerous - less easy than first thought.  







Previous articles on Pakistan by Hans Zomer: