A. Al-Quran
Walaupun al-Quran tidak memberi tumpuan kepada politik, namun ia masih lagi menyebut mengenai konsep seperti mustad'afin, hijrah, ummah dan jihad yang memberikan implikasi politik.
Beberapa ayat seperti dalam Surah al-Nisaa' ayat 98 sehingga ayat 99 menyebut mengenai mustad'afin yang diterjemahkan menjadi "mereka yang dipandang lemah", "orang yang tertindas" atau "orang yang ditekan"; penindasan oleh Fir'aun, perintah Tuhan supaya mereka yang lemah dilayan dengan adil dan perintah supaya orang yang ditindas supaya berhijrah dari tempat mereka ditindas itu.
Surah al-'Ankabut ayat ke 25 menyebut bahawa nabi Ibrahim a.s. sebagai "orang yang berhijrah ke arah-Nya". Peperangan terhadap kuffar atau golongan yang tidak beriman diperintahkan dan dijanjikan dengan bantuan ilahi walaupun sesetengah ayat menyebut bahawa hal ini boleh jadi berlaku sekiranya golongan kuffar yang mencetuskan peperangan dahulu serta perjanjian dibuat untuk mengakhiri peperangan.
Al-Quran juga menyebut mengenai ghanimah atau pembahagian harta rampasan peperangan bagi yang berjaya dalam peperangan. Peperangan dalaman menentang musuh seperti orang munafik atau talam dua muka juga diperintahkan. Sesetengah perintah tidak melampau batasan kehidupan nabi Muhammad s.a.w seperti merujuk perbalahan seseorang kepada Tuhan dan nabi-Nya atau tidak menaikkan suara semasa berbicara dengan nabi Muhammad s.a.w.
Hal yang mengehadkan ajaran politiknya adalah al-Quran tidak menyebut mengenai "sebarang struktur kuasa yang berkesinambungan atau rasmi" kecuali mengenai arahan mematuhi nabi Muhammad s.a.w. serta temanya itu dihadkan penggunaannya apabila Islam berjaya mencapai pemerintahan di "rantau yang luas serta besar populasinya, terdiri daripada golongan petani serta dikuasai oleh negeri-negeri dan bandar" berbeza dengan kehidupan nomad di padang pasir.
B. Madinah: Negara Kota Islam
Perlembagaan Madinah dideraf oleh nabi Muhammad s.a.w. Ia menjadi payung kepada perjanjian rasmi antara nabi Muhammad s.a.w. dengan semua puak utama serta keluarga di Yathrib iaitu nama lama Madinah termasuklah yang Muslim, Yahudi, Nasrani dan Pagan.
Perlembagaan ini membentuk asas kepada negara-kota Islam. Dokumen tersebut dicetuskan dengan mengambil kira keperluan untuk mengakhiri peperangan antara dua puak Arab yang bersengketa iaitu Aus dan Khazraj di Madinah. Kesan dari perlembagaan ini, beberapa hak dan tanggungjawab dibahagikan ke atas masyarakat Muslim, Yahudi, Nasrani dan Pagan di Madinah. Hal ini membawa mereka ke dalam lingkungan satu masyarakat yang disebut sebagai ummah.
Tarikh sebenar Perlembagaan Madinah ini masih lagi didebatkan namun umumnya sejarawan bersetuju bahawa ia ditulis tidak lama selepas peristiwa Hijrah pada tahun 622 masihi. Perlembagaan ini mengasaskan negara-kota Islam yang pertama di Semenanjung Tanah Arab. Ia mengasaskan hal yang berikut:
- Keselamatan masyarakat;
- Kebebasan beragama;
- Peranan Madinah sebagai rantau suci serta larangan membawa masuk senjata dan keganasan;
- Keselamatan wanita;
- Hubungan stabil antara puak di Madinah;
- Sistem cukai yang menyokong masyakarat semasa konflik;
- Penanda aras perikatan politik dengan pihak luar;
- Sistem yang memberi perlindungan kepada individu;
- Sistem pengadilan bagi menyelesaikan pertelingkahan; dan
- Sistem dam atau denda darah iaitu keluarga atau puak yang terlibat dalam pembunuhan seseorang individu itu dikenakan denda (in lieu of lex talionis).
C. Khalifah Awal dan Cita-Cita Politik
Selepas kewafatan nabi Muhammad s.a.w, masyarakat Muslim memerlukan pemimpin yang baru lalu timbullah gelaran khalifah yang bermaksud "pengganti". Oleh itu, empayar Islam yang berikutnya digelarkan sebagai kekhalifahan. Sepanjang zaman empayar Bani Umayyah, berlaku perkembangan politik dalam masyarakat Muslim apabila berlaku perpecahan mazhab antara puak Sunnah dan puak Syiah. Hal ini berakar umbi dari perbalahan mengenai siapakah yang akan menggantikan kekhalifahan. Puak Sunnah mempercayai bahawa khalifah ini boleh dipilih dari dalam kalangan Muslim. Walau bagaimanapun, puak Syiah mempercayai bahawa khalifah itu bersifat warisan dari keturunan nabi Muhammad s.a.w maka semua khalifah selain daripada Ali r.a. itu dianggap sebagai perampas kuasa. Puak Sunnah muncul menguasai dunia Muslim hari ini dan seterusnya dalam kebanyakan pergerakan politik Islam moden dengan pengecualian di Iran. Kebanyakan pergerakan Islam moden itu diasaskan dari aliran pemikiran puak Sunnah.
Sahabat nabi Muhammad s.a.w yang berempat atau khulafa al-rasyidin menggantikan baginda dan terus mengembangkan lagi negara-kota Islam sehingga ke Jerusalem, Ctesiphon dan Damsyik serta menghantar tentera sejauh Sindh di benua kecil India. Empayar Islam terentang dari al-Andalus di Sepanyol sehingga ke Punjab di bawah pemerintahan Bani Umayyah.
Selain daripada itu, konsep Islam yang melibatkan struktur pemerintahan disebut sebagai syura bertindak untuk menjalankan konsultasi dengan masyarakat berkenaan dengan hal-ehwal kehidupan mereka. Hal ini menjadi tanggungjawab pemerintah seperti dalam Surah Ali 'Imran (3:153) dan Surah Ash-Shuraa (42:36).
Sebahagian daripada pemerintahan yang tidak menepati cita-cita politik Islam adalah konsep "raja" yang dipandang remeh dalam al-Quran. Contohnya, Fir'aun disebut sebagai pemerintah yang tidak adil dan zalim" dalam Surah al-Kahfi (18: 70, 79) dan Surah al-Qasas (28:34).
D. Pemilihan atau Perlantikan Khalifah
Al-Mawardi, seorang qadhi mazhab Syafi'i menulis bahawa khalifah itu haruslah dari puak Quraisy. Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, seorang sarjana Ashari dan qadhi mazhab Maliki menulis bahawa pemimpin masyarakat Muslim haruslah dari dalam kalangan majoriti sahaja. Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man, pengasas mazhab Hanafi menulis bahawa seorang pemimpin itu haruslah dari dalam kalangan majoriti.
Fred Donner, seorang orientalis Barat membahaskan bahawa amalan standard masyarakat Arab semasa awal zaman khilafiah itu adalah orang-orang yang terhormat dalam kalangan kumpulan atau puak berkumpul membentuk satu majlis pemilihan selepas kematian seorang pemimpin dan memilih salah seorang dalam kalangan mereka sebagai seorang pemimpin. Walaupun tiada sebarang prosedur berkenaan dengan majlis syura atau perhimpunan untuk konsultasi. Calon selalunya berasal dari salasilah yang sama dengan si mati yang menjadi pemimpin itu namun tidak semestinya anak si mati. Lelaki berkebolehan yang akan memimpin dengan baik lebih disukai daripada seorang waris terus yang tidak berkemampuan kerana tiada sebarang asas pun dalam pandangan puak sunnah yang melihat bahawa seorang kepala negara atau gabenor itu patut dipilih berdasarkan kepada warisan atau keturunannya.
E. Majlis Syura
Proses pemilihan empat khalifah awal sebenarnya dipandang sebagai tidak demokratik dalam pandangan sains politik zaman moden kerana kuasa pembuatan keputusan itu berada di tangan majlis orang terhormat dan sahabat nabi Muhammad s.a.w serta wakil pelbagai puak yang kebanyakannya dipilih atau diundi dari dalam kalangan puak mereka.
Traditional Sunni Islamic lawyers agree that shura, loosely translated as 'consultation of the people', is a function of the caliphate. The Majlis ash-Shura advise the caliph. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Quran:
"...those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer, and who conduct their affairs by Shura. [are loved by God]"[42:38]
"...consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah"[3:159]
The majlis is also the means to elect a new caliph. Al-Mawardi has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, they must have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also said in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the people themselves should create a majlis, select a list of candidates for caliph, then the majlis should select from the list of candidates.[21][unreliable source?] Some modern interpretations of the role of the Majlis ash-Shura include those by Islamist author Sayyid Qutb and by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of a transnational political movement devoted to the revival of the Caliphate. In an analysis of the shura chapter of the Quran, Qutb argued Islam requires only that the ruler consult with at least some of the ruled (usually the elite), within the general context of God-made laws that the ruler must execute. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, writes that Shura is important and part of "the ruling structure" of the Islamic caliphate, "but not one of its pillars," and may be neglected without the Caliphate's rule becoming un-Islamic. However, These interpretations of Shura (by Qutb and al-Nabhani) are not universally accepted and Islamic democrats consider Shura to be an integral part and important pillar of Islamic political system.[citation needed]
Separation of powers
In the early Islamic Caliphate, the head of state, the Caliph, had a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad's political authority, who, according to Sunnis, were ideally elected by the people or their representatives,[24] as was the case for the election of Abu Bakar, Uthman and Ali as Caliph. After the Rashidun Caliphs, later Caliphates during the Islamic Golden Age had a much lesser degree of democratic participation, but since "no one was superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue" in Islam, and following the example of Muhammad, later Islamic rulers often held public consultations with the people in their affairs.[25]
The legislative power of the Caliph (or later, the Sultan) was always restricted by the scholarly class, the ulama, a group regarded as the guardians of Islamic law. Since the law came from the legal scholars, this prevented the Caliph from dictating legal results. Sharia rulings were established as authoritative based on the ijma (consensus) of legal scholars, who theoretically acted as representatives of the Ummah (Muslim community).[26] After law colleges (madrasas) became widespread beginning with the 11th and 12th century CE, a student often had to obtain an ijaza-t al-tadris wa-l-ifta ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") in order to issue legal rulings.[27] In many ways, classical Islamic law functioned like a constitutional law.[26]
Practically, for hundreds of years after Rashidun Caliphate and until the twentieth century, Islamic states followed a system of government based on the coexistence of sultan and ulama following the rules of the sharia. This system resembled to some extent some Western governments in possessing an unwritten constitution (like the United Kingdom), and possessing separate, countervailing branches of government (like the United States) — which provided Separation of powers in governance. While the United States (and some other systems of government) has three branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial — Islamic monarchies had two — the sultan and ulama.[28]
According to Olivier Roy this "defacto separation between political power" of sultans and emirs and religious power of the caliph was "created and institutionalized ... as early as the end of the first century of the hegira." The sovereign's religious function was to defend the Muslim community against its enemies, institute the sharia, ensure the public good (maslaha). The state was instrument to enable Muslims to live as good Muslims and Muslims were to obey the sultan if he did so. The legitimacy of the ruler was "symbolized by the right to coin money and to have the Friday prayer (Jumu'ah khutba) said in his name."[29]
Sadakat Kadri argues that a large "degree of deference" was shown to the caliphate by the ulama and this was at least at times "counterproductive". "Although jurists had identified conditions from mental incapacity to blindness that could disqualify a caliph, none had ever dared delineate the powers of the caliphate as an institution." During the Abbasid caliphate:
When Caliph Al-Mutawakkil had been killed in 861, jurists had retroactively validated his murder with a fatwa. Eight years later, they had testified to the lawful abdication of a successor, after he had been dragged from a toilet, beaten unconscious, and thrown into a vault to die. By the middle of the tenth century, judges were solemnly confirming that the onset of blindness had disqualified a caliph, without mentioning that they had just been assembled to witness the gouging of his eyes.[30]
According to Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University, the legal scholars and jurists lost their control over Islamic law due to the codification of Sharia by the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century:[31]
How the scholars lost their exalted status as keepers of the law is a complex story, but it can be summed up in the adage that partial reforms are sometimes worse than none at all. In the early 19th century, the Ottoman empire responded to military setbacks with an internal reform movement. The most important reform was the attempt to codify Shariah. This Westernizing process, foreign to the Islamic legal tradition, sought to transform Shariah from a body of doctrines and principles to be discovered by the human efforts of the scholars into a set of rules that could be looked up in a book. [...] Once the law existed in codified form, however, the law itself was able to replace the scholars as the source of authority. Codification took from the scholars their all-important claim to have the final say over the content of the law and transferred that power to the state.
Obedience and opposition
According to scholar Moojan Momen, "One of the key statements in the Qur'an around which much of the exegesis" on the issue of what Islamic doctrine says about who is in charge is based on the verse
"O believers! Obey God and obey the Apostle and those who have been given authority [uulaa al-amr] among you" (Qur'an 4:59).
For Sunnis, uulaa al-amr are the rulers (Caliphs and kings) but for Shi'is this expression refers to the Imams."[32] According to scholar Bernard Lewis, this Qur'anic verse has been
elaborated in a number of sayings attributed to Muhammad. But there are also sayings that put strict limits on the duty of obedience. Two dicta attributed to the Prophet and universally accepted as authentic are indicative. One says, "there is no obedience in sin"; in other words, if the ruler orders something contrary to the divine law, not only is there no duty of obedience, but there is a duty of disobedience. This is more than the right of revolution that appears in Western political thought. It is a duty of revolution, or at least of disobedience and opposition to authority. The other pronouncement, "do not obey a creature against his creator," again clearly limits the authority of the ruler, whatever form of ruler that may be.[33]
However, Ibn Taymiyyah — an important 14th century scholar of the Hanbali school — says in Tafseer for this verse "there is no obedience in sin"; that people should ignore the order of the ruler if it would disobey the divine law and shouldn't use this as excuse for revolution because it will spell Muslims bloods. According to Ibn Taymiyya, the saying, 'Sixty years with an unjust imam is better than one night without a sultan`, was confirmed by experience.[34] He believed that the Quranic injunction to "enjoin good and forbid evil" (al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-n-nahy ʿani-l-munkar, found in Quran 3:104 and Quran 3:110 and other verses) was the duty of every state functionary with charge over other Muslims from the caliph to "the schoolmaster in charge of assessing children's handwriting exercises."[35][36]
Sharia and governance (siyasa)
Starting from the late medieval period, Sunni fiqh elaborated the doctrine of siyasa shar'iyya, which literally means governance according to sharia, and is sometimes called the political dimension of Islamic law. Its goal was to harmonize Islamic law with the practical demands of statecraft.[37] The doctrine emphasized the religious purpose of political authority and advocated non-formalist application of Islamic law if required by expedience and utilitarian considerations. It first emerged in response to the difficulties raised by the strict procedural requirements of Islamic law. The law rejected circumstantial evidence and insisted on witness testimony, making criminal convictions difficult to obtain in courts presided over by qadis (sharia judges). In response, Islamic jurists permitted greater procedural latitude in limited circumstances, such as adjudicating grievances against state officials in the mazalim courts administered by the ruler's council and application of "corrective" discretionary punishments for petty offenses. However, under the Mamluk sultanate, non-qadi courts expanded their jurisdiction to commercial and family law, running in parallel with sharia courts and dispensing with some formalities prescribed by fiqh. Further developments of the doctrine attempted to resolve this tension between statecraft and jurisprudence. In later times the doctrine has been employed to justify legal changes made by the state in consideration of public interest, as long as they were deemed not to be contrary to sharia. It was, for example, invoked by the Ottoman rulers who promulgated a body of administrative, criminal, and economic laws known as qanun.[38]
Shi'a tradition
In Shia Islam, three attitudes towards rulers predominated — political cooperation with the ruler, political activism challenging the ruler, and aloofness from politics — with "writings of Shi'i ulama through the ages" showing "elements of all three of these attitudes."[39]
Kharijite tradition
According to some Muslim authors, extremism within Islam goes back to the 7th century to the Kharijites. From their essentially political position, they developed extreme doctrines that set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death.[40][41][42]
