Glimpses of the Nahj al-Balaghah
- Part 4
Martyr Ayatullah Murtada Mutahhari
Translated from the Persian by 'Ali Quli Qara'i
Government and Justice
The Nahj al-balaghah on State:
One of the frequently discussed issues in the Nahj al-balaghah is that
of government and justice. To anyone who goes through the book, it is
evident to what extent 'Ali ('a) is sensitive to the issues related to
government and justice. He considers them to be of paramount importance.
For those who lack an understanding of Islam but have knowledge of the
teachings of other religions, it is astonishing why a religious
personage should devote himself to this sort of problems. Don't such
problems relate to the world and worldly life'! Shouldn't a sage keep
aloof from the matters of the world and society?
They wonder. On the other hand, such a thing is not at all surprising
for one acquainted with the teachings of Islam and the details of 'Ali's
life; that 'Ali was brought up from childhood by the Holy Prophet of
Islam, that the Prophet ('s), having taken him from his father as a
child, had reared him in his home under his own care, that the Prophet
('s) had trained 'Ali ('a) and instructed him in his own characteristic
way, teaching him the secrets of Islam. 'Ali's spirit had assimilated
within itself the doctrines of Islam and the code of its laws.
Therefore, it is not strange that 'Ali should have been such; rather it
would have been astonishing if he wasn't such as we find him to be.
Doesn't the Quran declare: Indeed, We sent Our messengers with the clear
signs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men
might uphold justice ... (57:25) In this verse, establishment of justice
has been declared as being the objective of the mission of all the
prophets. The sanctity of justice is so stressed that it is considered
the aim of all prophetic missions. Hence, how were it possible that
someone like 'Ali ('a), whose duty was to expound the teachings of the
Quran and explain the doctrines and laws of Islam, might have ignored
this issue or, at least, accorded it a secondary importance? Those who
neglect these issues in their teachings, or imagine that these problems
are only of marginal significance and that the central issues are those
of ritual purity and impurity (taharah and najasah), it is essential
that they should re-examine their own beliefs and views.
The Importance of Politics:
The first thing which must be examined is the significance and value
attached to the issue of government and justice by the Nahj al-balaghah.
Indeed, what is essentially the importance of these problems in Islam? A
thorough discussion of this question is obviously outside the scope of
this book, but a passing reference, however, seems inevitable. The Holy
Quran, in the verse where it commands the Prophet ('s) to inform the
people that 'Ali ('a) would succeed him as the leader of the Muslims and
the Prophet's khalifah, declares with extraordinary insistence O
Messenger communicate that which has been sent down to thee from thy
Lord; for if thou dost not, thou will not have delivered His Message !
(5:67)
Is there any other issue in Islam to which this much importance was
attached? What other issue is of such significance that if not
communicated to the people should amount to the failure of the prophetic
mission itself? During the battle of Uhud, when the Muslims were
defeated and the rumour spread that the Holy Prophet ('s) had been
killed, a group of the Muslims fled from the battlefield. Referring to
this incident, the Quran says: Muhammad is naught but a Messenger;
Messengers have passed away before him. Why, if he should die or is
slain, will you turn about on your heels? (3:144) '
Allamah Tabataba'i, in an article entitled Wilayat wa-hakumat, derives
the following conclusion from the above verse: 'If the Messenger ('s) is
killed in battle, it should not in any way stall, even temporarily, your
struggle. Immediately afterwards, you should place yourselves under the
banner of the successor to the Prophet ('s), and continue your endeavour.
In other words, if, supposedly, the Prophet ('s) is killed or if he
dies, the social system and military organization of the Muslims should
not disintegrate.'
There is a hadith, according to which the Prophet ('s) said: "If (as few
as) three persons go on a journey, they must appoint one out of
themselves as their leader." From this one may infer to what extent the
Prophet regarded as harmful the disorder and absence of an authority
that could resolve social conflicts and serve as a unifying bond among
individuals.
The Nahj al-balaghah deals with numerous problems concerning the State
and social justice, a few of which, God willing, we shall discuss here.
The first problem to be discussed here is that of the necessity and
value of a State. 'Ali ('a) has repeatedly stressed the need for a
powerful government, and, in his own time, battled against the views
propagated by the Khawarij, who, in the beginning, denied the need for a
State, considering the Quran as sufficient. The slogan of the Khawarij
as is known was "The right of judgement (or authority to rule) is
exclusively God's" (la hukm illa li-Allah), a phrase adopted from the
holy Quran.
Its Quranic meaning is that the prerogative of legislation belongs to
God or those whom God has permitted to legislate. But the Khawarij
interpreted it differently. According to 'Ali ('a), they had imparted a
false sense to a true statement. The essence of their view was that no
human being possesses any right to rule others; sovereignty belongs
exclusively to God. 'Ali's argument was: Yes, I also say la hukm illa li-Allah,
in the sense that the right of legislation belongs solely to God. But
their claim that the prerogative to govern and lead also belongs to God
is not reasonable. After all, the laws of God need to be implemented by
human beings. Men cannot do without a ruler, good or evil.[1]
It is under the protection of a State that the believers strive for
God's sake, and the unbelievers derive material benefit from their
worldly endeavours, and men attain the fruits of their labours. It is
through the authority of State that taxes are collected, aggressors are
repelled, the security of highways is maintained, and the weak reclaim
their rights (through courts of law) from the strong. (This process
continues) until the good citizens are happy and secure from the evils
of miscreants. (Nahj al-balaghah, Khutab 40)
'Ali ('a), like other godly men and spiritual leaders, despises temporal
power and political office for being lowly and degrading when an
instrument of gratification of lust for power and political ambition. He
looks down upon it with extreme contempt when it is desired as an
end-in-itself and aspired as an ideal of life. He considers such kind of
power to be devoid of any value and considers it to be more detestable
than 'a pig's bone in a leper's hand.' But the same power and leadership
if used as a means for the establishment and execution of social justice
and service to society is regarded by him as a thing of paramount
sanctity, for which he is willing to fight any opportunist and political
adventurer seeking to grab power and illegitimate wealth. In its defence,
he does not hesitate to draw his sword against plunderers and usurpers.
During the days of 'Ali's caliphate, 'Abd Allah ibn al-'Abbas once came
to him. He found 'Ali mending his old shoes with his own hand. Turning
to Ibn al-'Abbas, 'Ali asked him, "How much do you think is this shoe
worth?" "Nothing," replied Ibn al-'Abbas. 'Ali said, "But the same shoe
is of more worth to me than authority over you if it were not to me a
means for establishing justice, recovering the rights of the deprived,
and wiping out evil practices." (Khutab 33) In the sermon 216, we come
across a general discussion about human rights and duties.
Here, 'Ali states that every right always involves two parties. Of the
various Divine duties the ones which God has ordained are duties of
people towards people; they are framed in such a way that each right
necessitates a duty towards others; each right which benefits an
individual or a group, holds the individual or group responsible to
fulfil some duty towards others. Every duty becomes binding when the
other party also fulfils his duty. He says further regarding this issue:
But the most important of the reciprocal rights that God has made
obligatory is the right of the ruler over the subjects and the rights of
the subjects over the ruler. It is a mutual and reciprocal obligation
decreed by God for them. He has made it the basis of the strength of
their society and their religion. Consequently, the subjects cannot
prosper unless the rulers are righteous.
The rulers cannot be righteous unless the subjects are firm and
steadfast. If the subjects fulfil their duties toward the ruler and the
ruler his duty to them, then righteousness prevails amongst them. Only
then the objectives of the religion are realized, the pillars of justice
become stable and wholesome traditions become established. In this way,
better conditions of life and social environment emerge. The people
become eager to safeguard the integrity of the State, and thus frustrate
the plots of its enemies. (Khutab 126)
Justice, a Supreme Value:
The first consequence of the sacred teachings of Islam was the influence
exercised on the minds and ideas of its adherents. Not only did Islam
introduce new teachings regarding the world, man, and his society, but
also changed the ways of thinking. The importance of the latter
achievement is not less than the former.
Every teacher imparts new knowledge to his pupils and every school of
thought furnishes new information to its adherents. But the teachers and
schools of thought who furnish their followers with a new logic and
revolutionize their ways of thinking altogether, are few. But how do the
ways of thinking change and one logic replaces another? This requires
some elucidation. Man by virtue of being a rational creature thinks
rationally on scientific and social issues. His arguments, intentionally
or unintentionally, are based on certain principles and axioms. All his
conclusions are drawn and judgements are based on them.
The difference in ways of thinking originates precisely in these first
principles or axioms, used as the ground of inferences and conclusions.
Here it is crucial what premises and axioms form the foundation for
inference, and here lies the cause of all disparity in inferences and
conclusions. In every age there is a close similarity between the ways
of thinking of those familiar with the intellectual spirit of the age on
scientific issues. However, the difference is conspicuous between the
intellectual spirits of different ages. But in regard to social
problems, such a similarity and consensus is not found even among
persons who are contemporaries.
There is a secret behind this, to expound which would take us outside
the scope of the present discussion. Man, in his confrontation with
social and moral problems, is inevitably led to adopt some sort of
value-orientation. In his estimations he arrives at a certain hierarchy
of values in which he arranges all the issues. This order or hierarchy
of values plays a significant role in the adoption of the kind of basic
premises and axioms he utilizes. It makes him think differently from
others who have differently evaluated the issues and have arrived at a
different hierarchy of values.
This is what leads to disparity among ways of thinking. Take for example
the question of feminine chastity, which is a matter of social
significance. Do all people prescribe a similar system of evaluation
with regard to this issue? Certainly not. There is a great amount of
disparity between views. For some its significance is near zero and it
plays no part in their thinking. For some the matter is of utmost value.
Such persons regard life as worthless in an environment where feminine
chastity is regarded as unimportant.
When we say that Islam revolutionized the ways of thinking, what is
meant is that it drastically altered their system and hierarchy of
values. It elevated values like taqwa (God-fearing), which had no value
at all in the past, to a very high status and attached an unprecedented
importance to it. On the other hand, it deflated the value of such
factors as blood, race and the like, which in the pre-Islamic days were
of predominant significance, bringing their worth to zero. Justice is
one of the values revived by Islam and given an extraordinary status.
It is true that Islam recommended justice and stressed its
implementation, but what is very significant is that it elevated its
value in society. It is better to leave the elaboration of this point to
'Ali ('a) himself, and see what the Nahj al-balaghah says. A man of
intelligence and understanding puts the following question to Amir al-Mu'minin
'Ali ('a): Which is superior, justice or generosity? (Hikam 437) Here
the question is about two human qualities. Man has always detested
oppression and injustice and has also held in high regard acts of
kindliness and benevolence performed without the hope of reward or
return.
Apparently the answer to the above question seems both obvious and easy:
generosity is superior to justice, for what is justice except observance
of the rights of others and avoiding violating them; but a generous man
willingly foregoes his own right in favour of another person. The just
man does not transgress the rights of others or he safeguards their
rights from being violated. But the generous man sacrifices his own
right for another's sake. Therefore, generosity must be superior to
justice.
In truth, the above reasoning appears to be quite valid when we estimate
their worth from the viewpoint of individual morality, and generosity,
more than justice, seems to be the sign of human perfection and the
nobleness of the human soul. But 'Ali's reply is contrary to the above
answer. 'Ali ('a) gives two reasons for superiority of justice over
generosity. Firstly he says: Justice puts things in their proper place
and generosity diverts them from their (natural) direction. For, the
meaning of justice is that the natural deservedness of everybody must be
taken into consideration; everyone should be given his due according to
his work, ability and qualifications.
Society is comparable to a machine whose every part has a proper place
and function. It is true that generosity is a quality of great worth
from the point of view that the generous man donates to another what
legitimately belongs to himself, but we must note that it is an
unnatural occurrence. It may be compared to a body one of whose organs
is malfunctioning, and its other healthy organs and members temporarily
redirect their activity to the recovery of the suffering organ.
From the point of view of society, it would be far more preferable if
the society did not possess such sick members at all, so that the
healthy organs and members may completely devote their activities and
energies to the general growth and perfection of society, instead of
being absorbed with helping and assisting of some particular member. To
return to 'Ali's reply, the other reason he gives for preferring justice
to generosity is this: Justice is the general caretaker, whereas
generosity is a particular reliever. That is, justice is like a general
law which is applicable to the management of all the affairs of society.
Its benefit is universal and all-embracing; it is the highway which
serves all and everyone.
But generosity is something exceptional and limited, which cannot be
always relied upon. Basically, if generosity were to become a general
rule, it would no longer be regarded as such. Deriving his conclusion,
Ali ('a) says: Consequently, justice is the nobler of the two and
possesses the greater merit. This way of thinking about man and human
problems is one based on a specific value system rooted in the idea of
the fundamental importance of society. In this system of values, social
principles and criteria precede the norms of individual morality. The
former is a principle, whereas the latter is only a ramification. The
former is a trunk, while the latter is a branch of it.
The former is the foundation of the structure, whereas the latter is an
embellishment. From 'Ali's viewpoint, it is the principle of justice
that is of crucial significance in preserving the balance of society,
and winning goodwill of the public. Its practice can ensure the health
of society and bring peace to its soul. Oppression, injustice and
discrimination cannot bring peace and happiness-even to the tyrant or
the one in whose interest the injustice is perpetrated. Justice is like
a public highway which has room for all and through which everyone may
pass without impediment.
But injustice and oppression constitute a blind alley which does not
lead even the oppressor to his desired destination. As is known, during
his caliphate, 'Uthman ibn 'Affan put a portion of the public property
of the Muslims at the disposal of his kinsmen and friends. After the
death of 'Uthman, 'Ali ('a) assumed power. 'Ali ('a) was advised by some
to overlook whatever injustices had occurred in the past and to do
nothing about them, confining his efforts to what would befall from then
on during his own caliphate. But to this his reply was: A long standing
right does not become invalid! Then he exclaimed: "By God, even if I
find that by such misappropriated money women have been married or
slave-maids have been bought, I would reclaim it and have it returned to
the public treasury, because: There is a wide scope and room in the
dispensation of justice.
[Justice is vast enough to include and envelop everyone;] he who [being
of a diseased temperament] finds restriction and hardship in justic
should know that the path of injustice and oppression is harder and even
more restricted. (Khutab 15) Justice, according to this conception, is a
barrier and limit to be observed, respected, and believed in by every
person. All should be content to remain within its limits. But if its
limits are broken and violated, and the belief in it and respect for it
are lost, human greed and lust, being insatiable by nature, would not
stop at any limit; the further man advances on this interminable journey
of greed and lust, the greater becomes his dissatisfaction.
Indifference to Injustice
'Ali ('a) regards justice to be a duty and a Divine trust; rather, to
him it is a Divine sanctity. He does not expect a Muslim who is aware
and informed about the teachings of Islam to be an idle spectator at the
scenes of injustice and discrimination. In the sermon called 'al-Shiqshiqiyyah',
after relating the pathetic political episodes of the past, 'Ali ('a)
proceeds to advance his reasons for accepting the caliphate. He mentions
how, after the assassination of 'Uthman, the people thronged around him
urging him to accept the leadership of Muslims. But 'Ali ('a), after the
unfortunate events of the past and being aware of the extent of
deterioration in the prevailing situation, was not disposed to accept
that grave responsibility.
Nevertheless, he saw that should he reject the caliphate, the face of
truth would become still more clouded, and it might be alleged that he
was not interested in this matter from the very beginning, and that he
gave no importance to such affairs. Moreover, in view of the fact that
Islam does not consider it permissible for anyone to remain an idle
spectator in a society divided into two classes of the oppressed and the
oppressor, one suffering the pangs of hunger and the other well-fed and
uneasy with the discomforts of over-eating, there was no alternative for
'Ali ('a) but to shoulder this heavy responsibility.
He himself explains this in the aforementioned sermon: (By Him who split
the grain and created living things,) had it not been for the presence
of the pressing crowd, were it not for the establishment of (God's)
testimony upon me through the existence of supporters, and had it not
been for the pledge of God with the learned, to the effect that they
should not connive with the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of
the oppressed, I would have cast the reins of [the camel of] the
caliphate on its own shoulders and would have made the last one drink
from the same cup that I made the first one to drink (i.e. I would have
taken the same stance towards the caliphate as at the time of the first
caliph). (Then you would have seen that in my view the world of yours is
not worth more than a goat's sneeze.) (Khutab 3)
Justice Should not be Compromised:
Favouritism, nepotism, partiality and shutting up of mouths by big
morsels, have always been the essential tools of politicians. Now a man
had assumed power and captained the ship of the caliphate who profoundly
detested these things. In fact his main objective was to struggle and
fight against this kind of politics. Naturally, with the very inception
of 'Ali's reign, the politicians with their hopes and expectations were
disappointed. Their disappointment soon grew into subversive
conspiracies against 'Ali's government, creating for him many a
headache.
Well-meaning friends, with sincere goodwill, advised 'Ali ('a) to adopt
greater flexibility in his policies for the sake of higher interests.
Their advice was: "Extricate yourself from the ruses of these
demagogues, as is said, 'sewing the dog's mouth with a big morsel'.
These are influential persons, some of whom are from the elite of the
early days of Islam. Presently, your real enemy is Mu'awiyah, who is in
control of a rich and fertile province like Syria. The wisdom lies in
setting aside, for the time being, the matter of equality and justice.
What harm there is in it?" 'Ali ('a) replied to them: Do you ask me to
seek support through injustice [to my subjects and to saerifice justiee
for the sake of political advantage]? By God! I will not do it as long
as the world lasts and one star follows another in the sky [i.e. I will
not do it as long as the order of the universe exists]. Even if it were
my own property I would distribute it with justice, and why not when it
is the property of God and when I am His trustee? (Khutab 126) This is
an example of how highly 'Ali valued justice and what status it held in
his opinion.
The Rights of the People:
The needs of a human being are not summarized in the phrase 'food,
clothing, and housing.' It may be possible to keep an animal happy by
satisfying all its bodily needs; but in the case of man, spiritual and
psychological factors are as important as the physical ones. Different
governments following a similar course in providing for the material
welfare of the public might achieve differing results, because one of
them fulfils the psychological needs of society while the other doesn't.
One of the pivotal factors which contribute to the securing of the
goodwill of the masses is the way a government views them, if it regards
them as its slaves or as its masters and guardians, if it considers the
people as possessing legitimate rights and itself only as their trustee,
agent, and representative. In the first case, whatever service a
government may perform for the people is not more than a kind of the
master's care of his beast. In the second case, every service performed
is equivalent to discharging of duty by a right trustee. A State's
acknowledgement of the authentic rights of the people and avoidance of
any kind of action that implies negation of their right of sovereignty,
are the primary conditions for securing their confidence and goodwill.
The Church and the Right of Sovereignty:
At the dawn of the modern age there was a movement against religion in
Europe, which also affected more or less other regions outside the
Christendom. This movement was inclined towards materialism. When we
examine the causes and roots of this movement, we discover that one of
them was the inadequacy of the teachings of the Church from the
viewpoint of political rights.The Church authorities, and some European
philosophers, developed an artificial relationship and association
between belief in God on the one hand and stripping the people of their
political rights by despotic regimes on the other.
Naturally, this led to the assumption of some necessary relation between
democracy on the one hand and atheism on the other. It came to be
believed that either we should choose the belief in God and accept the
right of sovereignty bestowed by Him upon certain individuals who have
otherwise no superiority over others, or deny the existence of God so as
to establish our right as masters of our own political destinies.
From the point of view of religious psychology, one of the causes of the
decline of the influence of religion was the contradiction between
religion and a natural social need, contrived by religious authorities,
especially at a time when that need expressed itself strongly at the
level of public consciousness. Right at a time when despotism and
repression had reached their peak in European political life and the
people were thirstily cherishing the ideas of liberty and people's
sovereignty, the Church and its supporters made an assertion that the
people had only duties and responsibilities towards the State and had no
rights.
This was sufficient to turn the lovers of liberty and democracy against
religion and God in general and the Church in particular. This mode of
thought, in the West as well as in the East, was deeply rooted from
ancient times. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, writes: We
are told by Philo, the Emperor Caligula argued, concluding, reasonably
enough on this same analogy, that kings were gods or alternately that
the people were animals.
During the Middle Ages,this out look was revived again; since it assumed
the status of religious faith, it induced a revolt against religion
itself. Rousseau, in the same book, writes: Grotius denies that all
human government is established for the benefit of the governed, and he
cites the example of slavery. His characteristic method of reasoning is
always to offer fact as a proof of right. It is possible to imagine a
more logical method, but not one more favourable to tyrants. According
to Grotius, therefore, it is doubtful whether humanity belongs to a
hundred men, or whether these hundred men belong to humanity, though he
seems throughout his book to lean to the first of these views, which is
also that of Hobbes. These authors show us the human race divided into
herds of cattle, each with a master who presents it only in order to
devour its members. [2]
Rousseau, who calls such a right 'the right of might' (right=force),
replies to this logic in this fashion: 'Obey those in power.' If this
means 'yield to force' the precept is sound, but superfluous; it has
never, I suggest, been violated. All power comes from God, I agree; but
so does every disease, and no one forbids us to summon a physician. If I
am held up by a robber at the edge of a wood, force compels me to hand
over my purse. But if I could somehow contrive to keep the purse from
him, would I still be obliged in conscience to surrender it? After all,
the pistol in the robber's hand is undoubtedly a power. [3]
Hobbes, whose views have been referred to above, although he does not
incline to God in his totalitarian logic, the basis of his philosophic
position regarding political rights is that the sovereign represents and
personifies the will of the people and he actually translates the will
of the people itself into his actions. However, when we closely examine
his reasoning, we find that he has been influenced by the ideas of the
Church. Hobbes claims that individual liberty is not contrary to
unlimited power of the sovereign.
He writes: Nevertheless we are not to understand that by such liberty
the sovereign power of life and death is either abolished or limited.
For it has been already shown that nothing the sovereign representative
can do to a subject, on what pretence soever, can properly be called
injustice or injury, because every subject is the author of every act
the sovereign does, so that he never wants right to anything otherwise
than as he himself is the subject of God and bound thereby to obscene
the laws of nature.
And therefore it may and does often happen in commonwealths that a
subject may be put to death by the command of the sovereign power and
yet neither do the other wrong-as when Jephtha caused his daughter to be
sacrificed; in which, and the like cases, he that so dies, had the
liberty to do the action for which he is nevertheless without injury put
to death. And the same hold also in a sovereign prince that puts to
death an innocent subject. For though the action be against the law of
nature as being contrary to equity, as was the killing of Uriah by
David, yet it was not an injury to Uriah but to God. [4]
As can be noticed, in this philosophy the responsibility to God is
assumed to negate the responsibility toward the people. Acknowledgement
of duty to God is considered sufficient in order that the people may
have no rights. Justice, here, is what the sovereign does and oppression
and injustice have no meaning. In other words, duty to (God is assumed
to annul the duty to man, and the right of God to override the rights of
men. Indubitably, Hobbes, though apparently a free thinker independent
of the ideology of the Church, had ecclesiastical ideas not penetrated
into his mind, would not have developed such a theory.
Precisely that which is totally absent from such philosophies is the
idea that faith and belief in God should be considered conducive to
establishment of justice and realization of human rights. The truth is
that, firstly, the belief in God is the foundation of the idea of
justice and inalienable human rights; it is only through acceptance of
the existence of God that it is possible to affirm innate human rights
and uphold true justice as two realities independent of any premise and
convention; secondly, it is the best guarantee for their execution in
practice.
The approach of the Nahj al-balaghah:
The approach of the Nahj al-balaghah to justice and human rights rests
on the above-mentioned foundations. In sermon 216, from which we have
quoted before, 'Ali ('a) says: Allah has, by encharging me with your
affairs, given me a right over you and awarded you a similar right over
me. The issue of rights, as a subject of discourse, is inexhaustible,
but is the most restricted of things when it comes to practice.
A right does not accrue in favour of any person unless it accrues
against him also, and it does not accrue against him unless that it also
accrues in his favour. As can be noticed from the above passage, God is
central to 'Ali's statement about justice, rights, and duties. But
'Ali's stand is opposed to the aforementioned view according to which
God has bestowed rights on only a handful of individuals solely
responsible to Him, and has deprived the rest of people of these rights,
making them responsible not only to Him but also to those who have been
granted by Him the unlimited privilege to rule others.
As a result, the ideas of justice and injustice in regard to the
relationship between the ruler and the ruled become meaningless. In the
same sermon 'Ali ('a) says: No individual, however eminent and high his
station in religion, is not above needing cooperation of the people in
discharging his obligations and the responsibilities placed upon him by
God. Again, no man, however humble and insignificant in the eyes of
others, is not too low to be ignored for the purpose of his cooperation
and providing assistance. In the same sermon, 'Ali ('a) asks the people
not to address him in the way despots are addressed:
Do not address me in the manner despots are addressed [i.e. Do not
address me by titles that are used to flatter despots and tyrants]. In
your attitude towards me do not entertain the kind of considerations
that are adopted in the presence of unpredictable tyrants. Do not treat
me with affected and obsequious manners. Do not imagine that your
candour would displease me or that I expect you to treat me with
veneration. One who finds it disagreeable to face truth and just
criticism, would find it more detestable to act upon them. Therefore, do
not deny me a word of truth or a just advice.
The Rulers are the People's Trustees Not Their Lords:
In the last chapter, we said that a dangerous and misleading view became
current in the thought of some modern European thinkers interlinking in
an unnatural fashion the belief in God on the one hand and negation of
peoples rights on the other. This correlation played a significant role
in inducing a group to incline towards materialism. Duty and
responsibility to God was assumed to necessarily negate the duty and
responsibility to the people. Divine obligations completely displaced
human obligations.
The belief and faith in God (Who, according to the Islamic teachings,
created the universe on the principles of truth and justice) was
considered to conflict with and contradict the belief in innate and
natural human rights, instead of being regarded as their basis.
Naturally, belief in the right of people's sovereignty was equated with
atheism. From Islamic point of view the case is actually the reverse. In
the Nahj al-balaghah, which is the subject of our discussion, the main
topics are tawhid and 'irfan; throughout the talk is about God, whose
Name occurs repeatedly everywhere in its pages.
Nevertheless, it not only does not neglect to discuss the rights of the
people and their privileges vis-a-vis the ruler, in fact regarding the
ruler as the trustee and protector of their rights, but also lays great
emphasis on this point. According to the logic of this noble book, the
imam and the ruler is the protector and trustee of the rights of the
people and responsible to them. If one is asked as to which of them
exists for the other, it is the ruler' who exists for the people and not
vice versa. Sa'di has a similar idea in his mind when he says: It's not
the sheep who are to serve the shepherd, But it is the shepherd who is
for their service.
The word ra'iyyah (lit. herd), despite that it gradually acquired an
abominable meaning in the Persian language, has an original meaning
which is essentially good and humanitarian. The word ra'i for the ruler
and ra'iyyah for the masses first appears in the speech of the Prophet
('s) and is literally used thereafter by 'Ali ('a). This word is derived
from the root ra'a, which carries the sense of 'protection' and
'safeguarding'. The word ra'iyyah is applied to the people for the
reason that the ruler is responsible for protecting their lives,
property, rights, and liberties.
A tradition related from the Holy Prophet ('s) throws full light on the
meaning of this word: Truly, everyone of you is a raii responsible for
his rai'yyah. The ruler is the ra'i of his people and responsible for
them; the woman is the ra'i of her husband's house and responsible for
it; the slave is the ra'i of his master's property and responsible for
it; indeed all of you are ra'i and responsible [for those under your
charge]. [5]
In the preceding pages we cited some examples from the Nahj al-balaghah
which illustrated 'Ali's outlook regarding the rights of the people.
Here we shall give sample quotes from other sources, beginning with the
following verse of the Holy Quran: God commands you to deliver trusts
back to their owners; and that when you judge between the people, judge
with justice ... (4:58) Al-Tabarsi, in his exegesis Majma' al-bayan,
commenting upon this verse, remarks: There are several opinions
regarding the meaning of this verse; firstly, that it is about trusts in
general, including the Divine and the non Divine, the material and the
non-material trusts; secondly, that it is addressed to the rulers, and
that God, by making the returning of the trusts an obligation, is
commanding them to observe the rights of the people.
Then he further adds: This is corroborated by the verse immediately
following it: O believers, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in
authority among you ... (4:59) According to this verse the people are
bound to obey the commands of God, His Messenger and those in authority
(wulat al-'amr). While the preceding verse mentions the rights of the
people, this one reiterates the complementary rights of those in
authority. It has been related from the Imams ('a) that 'one of these
two verses is ours (i.e. it establishes our rights in relation to you),
and the other is yours (i.e. it outlines your rights in relation to us)'
... Al-Imam al-Baqir ('a) said that the performanee of salat, zakat,
sawm, and Hajj are some of the trusts (mentioned in 4:58).
One of the trusts (amanat) is that the wulat al-'amr have been commanded
to justly distribute the ghana'im, sadaqat, and whatever is a part of
the rights of the people, among them. In the exegesis al-Mizan, in the
part of the commentary upon this verse which deals with tradition, the
author relates a tradition from al-Durr al-manthur from 'Ali ('a) that
he said: It is incumbent on the imam to rule according to the decrees
revealed by God, and to discharge the trusts that he has been charged
with. When he does that, it is incumbent upon the people to pay
attention to the Divine command (about obeying the wali al-'amr), to
obey him and respond to his call.
As noticed earlier, the Holy Quran considers the ruler and the head of
the State as a trustee and a guardian; it regards just government as a
fulfillment of a trust entrusted to the ruler. The approach of the
Imams('a), in particular that of Amir al-Mu'minin 'Ali ('a), corresponds
with the view which can be inferred from the Holy Quran. Now that we
know the Quran's view of this matter, we may go on to examine the
statements of the Nahj al-balaghah on this issue. More than anything
else, we must study 'Ali's letters to his governors, especially those
which were meant to be official circulars.
It is in these letters that we would find glimpses of the teachings of
Islam regarding the functions of the ruler and his duties towards the
people as well as their rights. Ali ('a), in his letter to the governor
of Adharba'ijan, reminds him of his duties towards the people in these
words: Beware lest you consider this assignment as a bait [for acquiring
personal gain]; rather, it is a trust lying on your neck. You have been
charged with caretaking [of the people] by your superior. It is not for
you to betray your duties with respect to the people (ra'iyyah). (Kutub
5)
In another letter written as a circular to tax collectors, after a few
words of advice and admonition, 'Ali ('a) says: Fulfill the demands of
justice in your relationship with the people and be patient in matters
regarding their needs; because you are treasurers of the people (ra'iyyah),
representatives of the community (Ummah), and envoys of your imams.
Kutub 51 In the famous epistle to Malik al-'Ashtar, which contains
elaborate instructions about various aspects of government, he writes:
Awaken your heart to kindness and mercy for the people (ra'iyyah) and
love and tenderness for them.
Never, never act with them like a predatory beast which seeks to be
satiated by devouring them, for the people fall into two categories:
they are either your brethren in faith or your kindred in creation ...
Do not ever say, 'I have been given authority' or 'My command should be
obeyed.' Because it corrupts the heart, consumes one's faith, and
invites calamities. In another letter sent as a circular to army
commanders, he says: It is an obligation that an official should not
behave differently with the people (ra'iyyah) on account of a
distinction he receives or material advantage that he may achieve.
Instead these favours from Allah should bring him nearer to God's
creatures and increase his compassion towards his brethren. Kutub 50
'Ali ('a) shows an amazing sensitivity to justice and compassion towards
the people and a great respect for them and their rights, which, as
reflected in his letters, is an exemplary and unique attitude towards
this issue. There is another letter in the Nahj al-balaghah consisting
of instructions to the collectors of zakat, and is entitled: 'To the
officials assigned to the job of collecting zakat'. The title indicates
that it was not addressed to any particular official but sent either as
a general instruction in writing or delivered as a routine oral
instruction.
Al-Sayyid al-Radi has included it in the section of kutub, or letters,
with the clarification that he is placing this letter here to show to
what extent 'Ali was meticulous in matters pertaining to justice and
rights of the people, being attentive not only to main points but also
to minute details. Here are 'Ali's instructions: Set out with the fear
of God, Who is One and has no partner. Do not intimidate any Muslim. Do
not tresspass upon his land so as to displease him. Do not take from him
more than Allah's share in his property. When you approach a tribe, at
first come down at their watering place, stay there instead of entering
their houses.
Approach them with calm dignity and salute them when you stand amongst
them, grudge not a proper greeting to them. Then say to them "O servants
of God, the Wali and Khalifah of God has sent me to you to collect from
you Allah's share in your property. Is there anything of His share in
your property? If there is, return it to His Wali. " If someone says
'No', then do not repeat the demand. If someone answers in the
affirmative, then go with him without frightening, threatening, or
compelling him. Take whatever gold and silver he gives you. If he has
cattle or camels, do not approach them save with his permission, because
the major part belongs to him. When you arrive (into the cattle
enclosure), do not enter upon them in a bossy and rude manner ... Kutub
25, also see 26, 27 and 46 The passages quoted above are sufficient to
throw light on 'Ali's attitude as a ruler toward the people under his
rule.
Notes:
[1] That is, in the absence of a righteous government, an unjust
government, at least preserves law and order in society, which is, of
course, better than chaos and rule of jungle.
[2] Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (trns. by Maurice
Granston Penguin Books, 1978, p. 51
[3] (Ibid p. 53)
[4] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1958, p.
173
[5] Bukhari, Kitab al Nikah, vol. VIII |