IDEA 34
The Broken Bai’ah
Bay’a rendered in pre-Islamic times was lifelong and there
was no machinery for the deposition or removal of the ruler even if he violated the law or became a despot. But [a] ruler in Islam, on the other hand, could neither issue ordinances nor [could] his personal opinion … take the place of law until and unless recognised by the Shari’ah or assented to by the members of the shura. They were responsible not only to God but to the umma as well. In other words, rulers in early Islam submitted to the same law and injunctions to which other members of the umma were subject. In case the rulers violated the injunctions of the Shari’ah and lost the confidence of the umma, Muslims were no more obliged to obey their orders and the ruler was liable to be removed from his august office. [Muhammad Nazeer Ka Ka Khel. Bay’a and its Political Role in the Early Islamic State, Islamic Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3]
The original bai’ah with the Prophet (may GOD bless him and give him peace) was in fact a deal struck with GOD, as we read in Q48:10 — The Hand of GOD was over their hands, and was framed as an exchange of commitments by GOD Himself, as cited in the previous blogpost.
Abu Bakr understood the bai’ah in these terms likewise, putting more emphasis on what he would be doing for the community than what he expected the community to do for him.
The conditionality of the bai’ah after the death of the Prophet (may GOD bless him and give him peace) was explicit and widely understood. So what caused this understanding to disintegrate and be replaced by the pre-Islamic “lifelong” acceptance of despotism?
When trust is broken in society, it usually starts from the top, from those who have power and want to keep it or increase it, and begin to regard the people’s aspirations as obstacles to their scheming.
Leaders who are close to the people know very well how much trust and hope they have gained from the community, and are afraid to betray that confidence. But the temptations to break that trust grow with every passing year and every opportunity to strengthen their power and tighten their grip on it. The conduct of war and commerce further widens the gap between them and common folk, until the ties that bind them to the people weaken and wither.
People who were used to remonstrating with their rulers and reminding them of past virtues and present follies become gadflies and vermin, to be swatted away or squashed. Scholars who protest against the rulers’ sins and negligence are soon banished or permanently silenced.
And so the bai’ah, a contract that originally required fulfillment from both sides, is converted into a one-sided affair for reasons of state. New scholars emerge who can provide convincing reasons for this change.
Among those reasons are: 1) the dangers of factionalism and civil war if a large enough party refuses allegiance; 2) the ignorance of the common folk regarding who is most competent and experienced; 3) the size of the population and their distance from the seat of power, necessitating the delegation of the choice of leader to the ahlil-halli wal-‘aqd, namely the nobles closest to the throne.
As scholars like Al-Ghazzali have opined, accepting a corrupt leader as a fait accompli is still preferable to bloody power struggles for the right to rule. A wise passivity, however corrupting it might be to popular morale and trust in authority, at least salvages a modicum of tranquility and security of life and property. Bitter, unending battles over legitimacy did indeed play a destructive part in early Islamic history, and on that experience was founded the belief that despotism was better than anarchy. A universal, compulsory bai’ah thus became the safest option, and eventually the only option, as Muslims learned to forget that there could ever be another way.
What we have now, of course, are leaders who only pretend to care about the people just prior to the elections that they stage-manage, and regard them with contempt thereafter, until the next electoral spectacle. The people, in the meantime, are either totally hopeless and apathetic about their government or temporarily aroused by the advent of a new leader until he or she betrays them when it is their turn to rule. Autocracy and oligarchy are more honest, but no more caring, than democracy. In this cyclical charade of disdain and despair between the effete leaders and the disgusted masses, the Islamic virtues of faith, constancy, probity, and discipline have little chance of flourishing.
No true scholar could give the blessing of the ‘consensus’ to this disgraceful state of affairs, let alone his allegiance. We have to ask ourselves, then: what could be done differently? How could the bai’ah become beautiful and meaningful once again?
Download the PDF version for free at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’ān – Mont Redmond complete version, or purchase a hard copy at Ideas Inspired by the Qur’an: Redmond, Mont: 9781738842506: Books – Amazon.ca.
Photo by Sam Kolder
