Under the Islamic political theory the role of party is even more severely defined

Under the Islamic political theory the role of party is even more severely defined. In Islam the Shari ‘at is the foundation and the rule for the very construction of the Ummah everyone within the Ummah is subject to the rule of Shari ‘at?

Obedience to public authorities is always conditional, i.e., a person is to obey a secular authority if such obedience does not involve disobedience to Allah. Every Muslim is required to educate himself and to participate in the affairs of the Ummah.

He is required to aid in doing of good, and eradication of evil, and he is required to withdraw support in case of acts of sin and transgression. The criteria of good and evil are given by the Divine revelation, i.e., the Qur’an.

The exemplification by the Prophet and his well-guided companions provide a cast for the structure of the Ummah. The power within the Ummah is by Divine mandate exercisable by members of the Ummah by the process of mutual consultation.

The object of exercise of power is protection of human rights.” The prime values and priorities for the Ummah are given these constraints; the legislative power within the Ummah is severely subordinate in character.

At bet it is interpreta­tive in the process of implementation. By the same token, a political party within the Ummah cannot claim an exclusive status in regard to interpretation of the Divine law.

Were a group to so claim it would stand to lose the primary qualification of being even a Muslim. Secondly, no legislature and much less a political party within the folds of Islam can ever claim the right to lay down any ultimate criterion of right and wrong, as secular legislatures in the first and the second world claim to do.

Any group within the Ummah who seeks to stand apart from the Ummah would consider­ably risk losing public support because according to the teachings of Islam ‘unity of the Ummah is a prime value, never to be sacrificed.

The best role of a political-party within the Ummah would be to suggest practical alternatives to the status quo in ones search for improvement of the affairs of the Ummah. These alternatives shall be subject of course to the judgment of the Shari ‘at.

At this stage it would be appropriate to consider the objection that formation of any sort of political parties is prohibited in Islam.

The following verses of Qur’an are often cited by the Muslim critics of party-system to establish that party-system is absolutely prohibited in Islam.

(As for) those who split up their religion and become divided into parties, you have no concern at all with them.

This verse is considered a direct command to abjure being divided into groups, though it is obvious that in the text being divided into parties is deprecated when it is associated with or involves ‘splitting of the religion’. How is this phrase to be under­stood we will presently discuss.

The second verse cited in this connection is:

Say, He has power to send punishment upon you from above you or from beneath your feet, or to confound you by (splitting you into) parties and “make you taste the violence of one another.

In this verse getting split into parties which carry on a war against each other is described as one the rebellious.

The conclusion generally drawn is that as splitting into groups can lead to as severe a punishment as described above, going even a few steps this way must be shunned at all costs. Caution in such matter is both advis­able and preferable.

In the third verse relevant to this issue it is said:

And be not of those who associate partners (with Allah), those who split up their religion and have become divided into parties-every party elating in what it has.¹⁰

In this verse splitting into self-sufficient parties formed after splitting the religion has been equated with shirk the unforgivable sin of attributing partners with Allah.

From this, it is reasoned that demand of correct moral approach is that one must avoid becoming part of a group which can degenerate into the sort of party associa­tion wherewith can lead to assured perdition. Here also splitting of the religion is clearly stated as a precondition. The fourth verse is:

Verily Pharaoh behaved arrogantly on the earth, and divided the people thereof into parties.

The above verse is interpreted to mean that getting divided into party’s leads to loss of power which in turn exposes people to oppression. On the other hand enjoyment of unity is a mercy from Allah.

Says Allah and remember the favour of Allah which He bestowed upon you when you were enemies, and He united your hearts in love, so that by his grace you became brothers and you were on the brink of a pit of fire and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah explain to you His command­ments that you may be guided?

The above quoted verses must be understood clearly, to be obeyed implicitly.

The word Shi’ah which has been used in all the first four verses carries meaning similar to that of hizb or taifah or firqah. Use of any of these words does not conclude the matter, because they have been used both in praiseworthy or pejorative sense.

It is, for instance, generally assumed that the word Shi’ah has been used in the Qur’an always in a pejorative sense. This assump­tion is unjustified.

In at least two places it is used to refer to divi­nely well guided parties in verses xxxviii: 15 and xxxvii: 83, refer­ring in the first to the party of Moses and in the second to Abraham as belonging to party of Noah.

Same is the case with the word hizb referring to party of Allahand party of Satan. Same is true of the other two words referred above.

Qur’an clearly informs the Ummah that the believers cannot undertake all the tasks facing them all together or all at once.

The Muslims are also invited to specialization and expertise. Qur’an also requires trusts obviously including the entrustment of public power to be assigned to those capable of carrying them. Allah says:

And when there comes to them any tidings, of peace or of fear, they spread it about, whereas if they had referred it to the Prophet and to those in authority among them, surely those of them, who can elicit (correct conclusions) would have understood it.

The verse clearly points to the fact that specialized knowledge is necessary for in-depth understanding of information, and correct assessment of situations.

Shura or mutual consultation before taking decisions in public affairs is mandatory according to Qur’an. Sound advice can come only from sound minds in possession of information for drawing correct conclusions.

From the preceding verse it is clear that some type of specialization is clearly contemplated because not all in­formation can be publicly shared with all.

Obviously, therefore, specialist groups are to be formed for performance of the obliga­tions of the Ummah.

Though dividing into parties by splitting up the religion is prohibited, yet Qur’an does contemplate the possibi­lity of differences existing as lead to fights between two groups of believers.

Addressing the Ummah Allah says:

And if two parties of believers fight, make peace between them; then if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the party that transgresses until returns to the command of Allah. Then if it returns, make peace between them with equity, and act justly. Verily Allah loves the just.

It is noteworthy that all the three above mentioned groups are referred to as believers (muminin.)

It also appears that if group formation is not on the basis of splitting of religion, it may not necessarily lead to a situation involving shirk.

In this context one may usefully refer to the following Qur’anic verse:

And as for those who chose a place for worship out of opposition and disbelief, and in order to cause dissent among the believers, and as an out-post for those who warned against Allah and his Prophet aforetime, they will surely swear : we meant nothing but good. Allah bears witness that they are certainly liars.

This verse appertains to the hypocrites who ostensibly did a good deed by building a mosque. But Allah revealed unto the Prophet their true motivation and ordered:

Never stand (to pray) therein.

The objective of these persons was to oppose the mission of the Prophet, to support disbelief, to cause dissent, and to establish an outpost for enemies of Islam. Persons acting in this fashion are obviously guilty of the sort of shrik Allah has asked the Prophet to keep aloof from.

Differences of opinion is almost inevitable in the human situation, but those escape punishment who receive the mercy of Allah, but those who deny the Divine guidance or are willful in their disregard of Divine law shall not escape punishment.

Allah has sent guidance with the Prophets in form of Books that it becomes the final arbiter between them but they differed therein out of envy and revolt against each other.

Out of these those who kept faith were guided out of situation of differences by Allah’s mercy Hereto submission to the will of Divine commandment appears to be the test to differentiate between the true believers and others.

Qur’an being free of contradiction the above quoted verses require analysis, which avoids contradiction in the conclusions drawn there from.

Moreso, when Allah has warned the believers against committing excesses in the matter of din and making unlawful what Allah has not, and making lawful that which He has prohibited.

Now the question we are examining is whether formation of groups in the nature of political parties is absolutely prohibited or there is room for them within the larger framework of Islam.

The standard classical works on political theory do not help us very much in this behalf. Generally, their theorizing follows actual historical events.

Little has been directly discussed about the problem as it arises for the Ummah today. Suspicion in regard to the more recent works on Islamic political theory that by raising issue of limited party-system, room is sought to be created for full- fledged modern party-system.

This suspicion about others, and lack of faith in one’s own judgement about discriminating between valid and invalid vitiates all debate.

It is stoutly affirmed that parties by their very nature are partisan, and stick to the cliché ‘my party right or wrong’ even if they do not publicly admit this to be the operational principle of the system.

On account of such operation­al principle it is claimed they fall outside the boundaries of specialized groups that are permitted in Islam.

So far as the party system of the socialist world is concerned, there the party claims exclusive right to lay down the principle of right and wrong and to be bound in its own conduct by no principle of morality or law.

Such a system is totally foreign to Islam’s teaching. Obviously such a party which recognizes no binding effect of law or morality is not permitted in Islamic constitutional theory. But this does not end our problems.

Political parties in the liberal western tradition are formed to obtain political power by forming governments; to advance certain ideas, ideologies or programmes for solution of national problems.

For giving effect to these ideas etc., the political parties propagate ideas, seek power by offering candidates, and by fighting elections or even by supporting some candidates not necessarily their own.

Loyal to the larger national consensus on the national priorities the political parties resort to these activities vigorously.

In the furious debates that precede elections a great many things are said about the faults of the candidates and the programmes of the opponents, and advantages of the programmes proposed and merits of the candidates offered by the concerned party, yet no one’s loyalty to the Constitution or the nation is sus­pect.

In England today the winning party becomes Her Majesty’s Government and the losing party her Majesty’s opposition. Banning party would be unthinkable in that country’s political tradition.

It is obviously so because the dimension of the conflict between such parties is manageable. It is manageable because a larger consensus exists, and the forces that unite the nation are stronger than those which divide.

The dispute is not about the right of the opponent to exist, but about what programmes are preferable and who should put them into: effect.

Doubt’s there are party-systems existing around the world, outside the socialist world where each party works on the assump­tion that it has the monopoly of truth and wisdom.

Those who oppose are to be exterminated, and that the right place for every member of the opposition is either in the graveyard or in the prison. Such a party-system is of a completely different order from that existing in the liberal West.

Within these extremes an often fruitless debate goes on, one arguing for party-system on the basis of true or distorted stories about the party-system in the communist system.

For a clearer understanding of the subject an analysis of the Qur’anic verses and, particularly the one cited above ‘splitting the religion (din)’ shall have to be undertaken.

The traditional argument on the theme has preceded on the basis that persons given to sectarianism or innovations are the persons referred to in these verses, whether amongst the Jews and the Christians or the Muslims.

But, this is obviously not an adequate answer because admittedly there are good innovations and bad ones. If every innovation was included then development within the Ummah would come to a standstill.

The period of the second caliph Umar is one of the glories chapters in Muslim history because so many new measures were introduced by him. Every work of history or his biography, recounts them proudly.

Obviously, these measures do not fall within the four corners of the word ‘innovation’ which has been equated with ‘reprehensible conduct’. ‘Sectarianism’ as such is again by itself not a clear enough criterion.

Historically speaking we have accepted within the folds of Islam many who were initially criticized for sectarianism or for innovations.

The list of those who were declared as unbelievers by the contemporary fatwas is long. Later they were accepted back in the folds of Islam, and in some cases described as savants of Islam

Perhaps the key to understanding of the basic criterion lies in the words ‘dividing the religion (din)’.

The word din is very comprehensive. In fact it has been used in the Qur’an in a widely comprehensive manner. It means obedience and submission.

It means guidance, authority, and supremacy government, state, Constitution law, administration, judgment, concrete result, reward or punish­ment, and recompense. It is also used to mean obedience and submission, as also for tradition.

In Sura al-Waqiah the words ‘ghair madineen’ have been used for persons who think they are not accountable to anyone. Allah says:

Fight those who do not believe neither in Allah, nor in the Day of Judgment, nor hold unlawful what Allah and His Prophet has declared unlawful, nor follow the true religion.

It will be noticed that use of the word din has two aspects, one submission and full co-operation by the human beings with the Divine dispensation which encompasses the universe and the other is the absolute supremacy and superiority of Divine law (sunhat Allah).

One who disobeys Allah willfully and also denies the binding effect of the law revealed by Him, launches himself on a collision course with the Laws of Nature. He becomes guilty of shirk when he holds any other source in higher esteem.

However, at a more concrete level Allah has given unto the believers and the rest of mankind different laws and constitutions to run their affairs. Says Allah:

And let the People of the Gospel judge according to what Allah has revealed therein, and whose judges not by what Allah has revealed, these it is who are the rebellious.

And we have revealed unto thee the Book comprising the truth and fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book, and as a guardian over it.

Judge, therefore, between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their evil inclinations, turning away from the truth which has come to thee.

For each of you we prescribed a clear spiritual Law and a manifest way in secular matters. And if Allah had enforced his will, he would have made you all one people, but he wishes to try you by that which he has given you.

He, then with one another in good works. To Allah shall you all return; then will He inform you of that wherein you differed.

Qur’an lias also emphasized the absolute sovereignty of Allah in regard to the constitutional framework of the legal system of the Ummah. Allah says:

Have they associates (of Allah) as have made lawful for them in din that which Allah has not permitted. .

All man-made laws are clearly subordinate to the Shari ‘at and for their validity, depend on the sanction of the Divine law. Any claim of legislative capability, co-equal with the Divine or superior thereto, would be an act of assigning associates with Allah.

In other words, the test appears to be whether a person accepts the sove­reignty of Allah or not. If a person believes that the Shari ‘at as revealed can be abrogated by any human agency would appear to be guilty of shirk, the act of assigning associates with Allah.

By the same token only those would appear to be guilty of ‘splitting the religion’ as would dissociate with the Ummah by an act which assigns to the act or will of a human agency so high a status as to require the act of dissociation.

In other words, so long as a person accepts the supremacy of Divine law, even though he has differences extending to a situation of fighting even.

He would not be guilty of that splitting of religion which Qur’an characterizes as being shirk requiring dissociation by the Prophet and the Ummah Qur’an clearly contemplates the possibility of two groups of believers fighting. Says Allah:

And if two parties of believers fight each other, and then make peace between them. And if one party of them transgresses against the other, fight the transgressing one till it submits to the law of Allah. If it does return, then make peace between them justly.

Qur’an does not hold the two groups as mushrikin for the mere act of fighting. It also makes submission to law of Allah the test for security from war, and as the basis of peace.

Allah has prescribed unity of the Ummah as a mercy from Him and as prime value. The differences should not break the unity, as Allah will surely adjudicate about these matters on the Day of Judgment.

The Ummah retains her strength and the interests of individual Muslims are best served in a state of unity.

This unity is best preserved when the Muslims remain alive to their duties aris­ing from their covenant with Allah irrespective of performance of others and submit to the fair judgment of the Shari ‘at under all conditions.

This is an abiding duty. Under these conditions, disunity can only be the result of unjust claims, or rebellion, or of willfully placing ones interests or views as high as to risk the disunity of the Ummah.

Qur’an even takes note of the facts that there might be disputes which do not get resolved.

Each party in such a case in all sincerity believes that it has truth on its side. In such a case the believers are ordered to leave the issue as it is, for Allah to resolve on the Day of Judgment, and not to let such differences break the unity of the Ummah.

Use of force, coercion, threat, fraud, deception or ex­ploitation is all forbidden ways for dealings within the Ummah. These principles apply right across all the social, political and economic fields.

These techniques are forbidden even if the objec­tive be to support the finest causes for which a person or group might seek to unite the Ummah.

It must also be fairly clear from the above analysis that the popular party system of the Western democracies of 19th and early 20th century is fading fast even in the areas of its origin.

A mature and somewhat intellectually-oriented leadership pattern is coming into its own. The party system of Marxist-Leninist brand, is fighting a last ditch battle for survival in seats of absolute power, against the new bureaucratic and the newly emerging military and political forces.

The Ummah facing problems of diverse kind skeptically looks on the West and the East. The party system of both the first and the second world has features which make wholesale adoption unpractical.

The problems facing the Ummah defy easy solutions. They require ‘jihad’ on a breath-taking scale, and as a clear con­sequence great intellectual and spiritual courage and ability.

Within our own life-times the very stuff of politics has under­gone a revolutionary change.

Till quite recently the popular style in the third world for mobilizing public opinion achieving political in­dependence from foreign dominance or imperialism was to hold vast rallies and to make fiery speeches.

The numbers who attended these rallies and the intensity of the emotion displayed determined the popularity of the leader and the strength of the cause he stood for. The response was based on the assumption that the people were supreme.

The second quarter of the twentieth century ushered a massive transformation in the techniques of leadership. If people were supreme they were yet amenable to manipulation.

Willful manipula­tion of crowds became an article of faith with the emerging dictatorships around the world.

Technology helped along the way Hitler, Mussolini, Gandhi and many other lesser mass manipula­tors swayed the masses in manner the like of which the world had rarely seen.

After achieving independence the leadership had to assume a new role. From the role of the critics the leaders had to become the performs.

Speech making became secondary, though it was not given up easily. As the performance slipped further, the speeches appeared more and more hollow. Assassination or injury at the hands of an angry member of the masses became a constant night­mare.

The new rallies progressively became controlled rallies, with­out the voluntary passion and abandon of the bygone days.

Mani­pulation on vast unprecedented scales was now to become common practice. People were required to stimulate genuine passion to become entitled to receive benefits or to avoid correction, if not punishment.

Fortunately for the Islamic world if people are new to freedom, the rulers are new to the art of total manipulation.

The field for the emerging leadership in the Islamic world yet remains one of performance. Recounting one’s services in achieving independence from the foreign yoke is no more sufficient.

No doubt even in recent times also old style political campaigns have been undertaken. But the effect does not last long (Maribor Raman).

Where genuine superior ability and clear-sighted programmes were missing, decline was swift.

One may now perhaps summarize the conclusions to be drawn from the above somewhat wide range discussion about the idea of leadership in Islam, the relationship between leadership and political parties, the limits within which persons may offer themselves for candidature, and the limits within which specialization and forma­tion of political parties is possible:

1. The basic principles for the guidance of the Ummah are given.

2. The obligation of every Muslim, in his individual and collective capacity is to apply them and to live by them and above all to hold them as the criteria for judging their own or the Unmakes performance.

3. For the performance of their collective duties, and dis­charge of collective obligations the Ummah can form groups.

4. In so far as every Muslim has obligations which go with his special abilities, the groups formed in service of the Ummah would be of different types and structures, depending on the nature of the task undertaken.

Obviously, the Muslims who become part of such groups would consider the given activity of the group important enough for the special effort, but always subordinate to the larger objectives of the Ummah, and the rule of the Shari ‘at.

5. For regulation of all these groups within the Ummah the Qur’an has given certain guiding principles:

(i) Group formation and activity shall have to be sincerely for service of Islam.

(ii) No member of a group may consider or hold those who do not join the venture as hypocrites or un­believers so long as they accept the binding authority of the Shari ‘at.

(iii) It is mandatory that all believers understand that in regard to the priorities in a given situation differences can always arise between two or more well intention- ed Muslim groups.

If the differences cannot be resolved, let them not be allowed to breach the unity of the Ummah which is a prime value. It is within such a framework that the politic il parties will be allowed to be formed.

6. Within the political parties the principles regarding leader­ship within the Ummah shall be adhered to, so also the principles of Shudra and accountability in regard to what­ever is in trust, of which power is first, and of foremost importance.