Get complete information on the administrative system of Delhi Sultanate

Get complete information on the administrative system of Delhi Sultanate

Theocracy:

The political theory of the Islamic State is based on the religious law of Islam according to which the ultimate authority and the supreme head of the State is God Himself who rules the worldly kingdom through the Caliph, Sultan or Padshah. The latter are merely the deputies of God and have no independent position. They are subject to the will of God as expressed in the law.

However, subject to those limitations, they can do whatever they like. It is true that all Muslim rulers had in theory the right to interpret the law but actually they had to depend upon the leading theologians for its interpretation. Thus, the Muslim state was undoubtedly a theocracy. This basis of the Muslim state was never discarded by the Sultans of Delhi and hence the Delhi Sultanate continued to be a theocracy.

The fact that the law of Islam as propounded by the four schools of jurisprudence did not suffice to cover all the new situations and problems arising in the Muslim States, did not affect the basic character of the State. It is true that the Sultans admitted that the Muslim law was not able to guide them in every sphere and consequently they had to depart from the law in certain cases, but that was only in matters of detail and did not affect the basic concept that the Islamic state was an organised agency founded by God Himself to propagate Islam through the instrumentality of the earthly rulers.

The Sultanate of Delhi was a theocracy. The Sultan was the Caesar and Pope combined in one. It is not correct to say that there was a secular state at that time. Islam was the religion of the state and no other religion was recognised. All the sources of the state were meant for the protection and spread of Islam.

Dr. Qureshi is of the opinion that the Sultanate of Delhi was not a theocracy because the rule of the ordained priesthood, which was an essential feature of theocracy, was absent. This view ignores the fact that under the Sultanate of Delhi the canon law was supreme and the civil law was subordinate to it.

It is true that Ulemas in India were not ordained and hereditary but it cannot be denied that they exercised great influence on the affairs of the state and they saw to it that the Quranic law was applied by the rulers of the country.

The ideal of a Sultan was to convert all the people to Islam and thus turn Dar-ul-Harb or infidel land into Dar-ul-Islam or Muslim lands. As a matter of fact, all kinds of facilities were given to the people to become Muslims. In spite of this, the whole of India was not converted to Islam that was partly due to practical difficulties.

According to Dr. Habibullah, “The chronicles tend to give us an impression that the Sultanate was a truly Islamic state, constantly striving to make its policy conformable to the shariah. That it was scarcely so in actual practice, will have been gathered from the last few chapters. We have noticed the un-Islamic character of the kingship; Barani admits that ‘duniyadari’, of which kingship is the highest perfection, is absolutely opposed to ‘dindari’.

After tracing the process by which the pagan institution of monarchy had crept into Islam, he concludes that sovereignty is never possible without practising non-Islamic customs. Conscientious ecclesiastics might delude themselves that the Sultan really existed for protecting the faith and upholding the shariah; but it requires little stressing that the decisive factor in his actions was the law of force and expediency.

In summing up his account of the origin and nature of kingship, Barani remarks, the meaning of kingship is power istila, whether obtained by lawful means or by force; even the older pagan law of dynastic legitimacy finds no place in the present kingship. The shariah, in ordinary practice, was no more respected than any other law. Barani admits that a capital punishment of Muslims which, he adds, was contrary to the Sacred Law, was necessary for the exigencies of better government.

Similarly, the law of inheritance, the strict distinction between halal and haram and many other well-known injunctions were violated; the ecclesiastics protested but were constrained to find excuse. The well-known prohibition of the shariah regarding the taking and giving of interest on monetary transaction was openly disregarded; Amir Khusrau mentions the rate of interest at one jital per month for the principal sum of one tanka which, when agreed upon by the parties on a written bond, had a legal sanction and was enforced by the qazi.

Of the four conditions which Barani advises the king to bear in mind when issuing decrees (zabitah), one is that if any of the proposed ordinances is found contrary to the shariah, it need not be withdrawn but, as an evil necessity is to be retained not longer than is necessary.

“Even the majority of the ulema, the guardians of the sacred law, was utterly materialistic in outlook and opportunist in conduct. They entered into an unholy alliance with the secular authorities and by distorting the rules of the shariah, found sanction for the Sultan’s pagan practices. Even traditions from the Prophet were concocted to give the king’s despotism a moral backing.

They held out that the Sultan’s office was only slightly inferior to that of the Prophet and his sanctity almost equal to that of God. To suit the Sultan’s convenience his religious duties were sought to be confined to such matters as leading the prayers, making endowment for the ulema and religious establishments and dispensing justice, while the most flagrant breaches of the shariah rules like drinking, non-observance of the fast etc., were condoned. The ulema even authorised him to appropriate the people’s wealth whenever he desired.”