Autocratic
Hereditary Rule
When a person ascends the throne,
his blood relation and natural love demand that his son being inheritor of his
property and possessions, should also be his successor as a king. But this is
his sheer mistake, for kingship is not his property but a trust entrusted to
him by his country and nation. Hence he is not within his rights to put his
rule to his disposal and pass it on to anybody at will.
A trust is always consigned to its
real master. Hence, it is up to the nation to hand it over to any tested and
trusted person most suitable to the job. But it requires utmost courage and
very strong resolution to hold the king back from committing breach of trust
and confidence. Such dauntless courage can be produced by Islam alone which it
has done through the ages and what the Prophet (صلى
الله عليه وآله وسلم) had implanted into his Companions.
The Muslims evaded teachings of
Islam with the result they lost much of their courage, determination and
ambition which Islam had produced in them in the past, and hence, they could
not put a check on their rulers. Instead they shut their eyes to the
misappropriations of their rulers in every department of life. At last, the
ugly practice of forming autocratic hereditary rule which was obliterated
during the Righteous Caliphate, was once again brought back to life, and the
Muslims as a whole, had to bear the brunt of their agreeing to wrong practice.
Hereditary crown princeship's
unreasonable and praise-less practice so often paved the way for most of the
unworthy and incapable persons to become rulers of the Muslims -- persons who
were even lacking in the qualities of getting a seat in the assembly of worthy
and civilized men. Certainly there should be only one ruler or caliph or king
of the Muslims, but he must be the best among them and they elect him with
general agreement or majority opinion. Anybody's birth in the house of a caliph
or king doesn't mean that he has necessary abilities to make a worthy ruler.
Had this practice of hereditary rule
not been permitted, and the Islamic concept of governance and the ruling system
had been as well-guarded as it was during the Righteous Caliphate, the Islamic
rule and the Muslims would not have reduced to such a sad plight we see today.
But it was the Will of Allâh and hence it came to pass. Had the Muslims opposed
it right from the beginning and not slackened their efforts to keep it intact,
then although they had to give supreme sacrifices at the outset, but later,
none would have mustered courage enough to get his son elected to the throne or
declared him his successor. Abu Bakr ( رضى الله عنه
) had more than one worthy son to make a good ruler but he found Umar ( رضى الله عنه ) best among the Muslims and recommended
his name for the next caliph. Abdullâh ( رضى الله عنه
) the son of Umar ( رضى الله عنه ) was, undoubtedly,
worthy of being the caliph after his father, but since, Umar Fârooq ( رضى الله عنه ) was essentially bent upon uprooting this
evil practice, issued command that Abdullah bin Umar ( رضى الله عنه ) should, in no case, be elected caliph.
The greatest folly and blindness of
people is that they see with their naked eyes the evils of autocratic rule but
still never take the trouble of going deep into the causes of these evils. By
opposing autocracy, they start praising democracy. The main cause behind the
evils of autocratic rule is that it had made room for heredity and snatched
away from the people the right to elect the ruler of their own choice. Thus, it
is the demand of reason that first of all the origin of all evils, i.e., the
system of hereditary rule be debarred from making entry to the sphere of human
activity. They should make it a point not to allow at any cost the son of a
ruler to succeed if he is not worthy of becoming one. And he should be elected
with consensus or majority opinion even if he deserves the throne or seat of
power. What sort of wisdom it is to commit another such mistake to avoid one.
It is the timidity and lack of courage on the part of the public that encourage
the despotic and unworthy rulers to go unbridled. The obedience shown with a
sense of duty is far apart from one which is done out of cowardice. To make it
more clear, we can cite the example of Umar ( رضى الله
عنه ) whose governors would say that they felt Umar's one hand
below and another about the jaws and he would tear our jaws apart on slight
deviation from the prescribed course. Khâlid bin Walid ( رضى الله عنه ) receives the order of Umar Fârooq ( رضى الله عنه ) and he very silently obeys it in spite
of being a commander of great victories. Umar ( رضى
الله عنه ) is on the other hand, challenged right on his pulpit and a
very common and ordinary person examines his honesty and trusteeship. A woman
listens to Umar's speech regarding bridal-money and has the courage to raise
objection against a point therein, and the Commander of the Faithful had to
admit from his pulpit that even the women of Al-Madinah could inform him of his
mistake.
Now, one can easily think of the
sort of obedience shown to Umar ( رضى الله عنه
), and compare it with the kind of obedience shown to the last Mogul kings in
the courts and in the very country they ruled. Royal orders were not carried
out not only in the Punjab, Sindh, Deccan, Bengal and other provinces, but also
in Agra, Allahabad and Delhi.
Autocratic
Democratic Rule
The type of rule Islam has formed on
this earth is known as Autocratic Democratic Rule. The system of rule suggested
by Islam lies between pure democracy and pure autocracy. Every Islamic section
has its say in the election of caliphate, king or ruler. In the election of the
most suitable and most deserving person for the rule or caliphate, all possible
fair means should be made use of, and the best person to be elected at all
costs. The Muslims need no institution of law or constitution or formation of
any modern system of government, for they possess the noble Quran and the
Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).
Thus the task of electing best man
for the job is also not difficult for the Muslims. The man who knows the Quran
and Hadith more and acts more upon them is the most deserving of all to become
the ruler of the Muslims. To run the administration according to the teachings
of the Quran and Hadith and to enforce Divine and Prophetic commands, are the
main duties of a Muslim ruler.
The Muslims have every right to
challenge their rulers if and when he makes even slight deviation from the path
set by Allâh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله
وسلم). But it is incumbent on each and every Muslim to follow every
order of the ruler, if it is not contrary to the dictates of the Quran and the
Sunnah without even thinking to revolt against the ruler. In case a Muslim
ruler shows sign of deviation from the right path, he may be deposed then and
there. But if he carries out his duties to his nation with Divine sense and
good intentions, his deposition would be the height of idiocy after passing a
tenure of three or five years.
The caliph of the Muslims happens to
be the servant, watchman, guard and trustee of the Muslims; why should then we
remove him from a position wherefrom he is serving the Muslims with all the
power at his command just for plunging in the trouble of a new experiment. The
Muslims do not want their caliph to enact laws for them nor allow him to pass a
luxurious life at the cost of public exchequer. The caliph of the Muslims,
under a moderate and reasonable system, collects wealth from the wealthy
section in reasonable proportion and spends it on the poor, the needy and the
orphan for their welfare. Since, a reasonable tax is collected from the wealthy
section to be given to the needy, there is no chance of any conflict arising
between the capitalists and the laborers which has, now, taken the whole Europe
in its grip.
The caliph of the Muslims is the
guard and watchman of the Muslims as well as their teacher, guide, commander,
servant and king. In important matters and national affairs, for instance, if
an enemy country is to be invaded or peace is to be brought about with the
hostile power, or troops to be sent to help any people or for protecting the
Muslims, or keeping peace in the country, the caliph has to hold consultations
with the Muslims for the Quran had ordained him to do so. But the purpose of
consultation is not to force the Muslim ruler to toe their line by holding back
his own. The sole purpose of such consultation is that the caliph should listen
to favorable and unfavorable opinions about the issue and then form his own
opinion in the light of wise counsels. The Quran says:
"...
and consult them in the affairs. Then when you have taken a decision, put your
trust in Allâh." (3:159)
The model of the system of
government Islam wants to set up, as mentioned above, may be seen in the era of
the Righteous Caliphate. After that, the system of rule changed into autocratic
hereditary one. However, the bright points of Islamic teachings and morality
kept glaring out the rules established by the Muslims, and taken as a whole,
the type of rule set up by the Muslims has no parallel in the annals of
history. Democratic governments whose example Europe and America are presenting
today, can never come at par with the type of rule Islam wants to establish.
No comments:
Post a Comment