Political
Power

You know,

in the land into which the Messenger was born

there was very little that most people nowadays would recognise as politics.

It could be a hard place to live,

requiring great strength of character,

as the heat of the sun can be brutal in those parts,

and this was a characteristic that could also be seen in many of those who lived there.

The inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula were divided into two main groups,

as they still are,

the nomads who lived in the desert, known as Bedouin or Badw,

and the people who lived in the towns called the Hadar.

The Bedouin mainly lived by raising livestock, such as sheep and camels,

constantly needing to move through the harsh desert lands

in search of water and grazing for their animals.

Individual Bedouin found their self-protection by being part of various groupings

on the basis of their immediate family

as well as their ancestry,

their clan,

and any person who did not belong to that common origin

was considered to be an enemy.

But individuals did not have to submit to any kind of centralised authority.

Such authority never existed in Bedouin gatherings,

and the role of desert Shaikhs was more

one of trying to maintain unity within the clan,

with the power to banish individuals who rebelled against clan traditions,

or grant asylum to those who requested it,

or to declare war upon those seen as the clan's enemies.

Now in some of the more settled areas of the Arabian peninsula

they clearly knew of more centralised political authorities,

like kingdoms,

or in the case of Sheba queendoms.

But in the vast area of the Hijaz, the townsfolk, the Hadar,

even though they might be living in fairly large cities

like Makkah, Ta'if and Yathrib,

had ideas of individual rights and social relations much the same as the Bedouin.

It is true that to a certain extent Makkah was somewhat more organised,

being the focal point for gatherings of the powerful Quraysh tribes,

and also because the inhabitants of Makkah needed to find

a way to organise their society

to deal with the yearly influx of pilgrims to the Ka'abah,

with certain honorary titles and responsibilities being held by certain families.

But there was still no central authority.

Indeed, when the citizens of Yathrib first contacted the Messenger in Makkah,

it was to see if he would try to bring peace

to the apparently endless fractious disputes

and tribal warfare of those who lived there.

And it was only after the Messenger moved with his community to Yathrib

that some form of centralised political authority

as we now understand it

came into being.

But during the Makkan years of the Revelation,

the Messenger was only concerned with the behaviour of those who accepted his Message,

teaching them how to worship and how to behave,

and during this period,

despite the hostility shown towards the new muslims by the Quraysh,

the Qur'an and the Messenger gave no permission for fighting in retaliation.

For those 13 years in Makkah the muslims were ordered only to show patience,

perseverance, and graceful forgiveness

to their enemies in the city.

That didn't end until the second pledge of allegiance

from the tribal representatives of Yathrib

at al-'Aqaba,

when they pledged to defend the Messenger with their lives.

Then, with the Hijra,

the muslim community finally came together

in a place with defined borders within which certain laws applied to everyone,

and within which could be found peace and safety,

a place where it was possible to have the communal justice that was central to an Islamic society.

And the birth of this communal agreement

was recorded in a document often described as the Constitution of Madinah.

And in this document

all agreed to no longer give primacy to tribe and family,

but to what was described as an Ummah.

And this document first describes those who are part of this Ummah,

namely the muslims who had travelled from Makkah

and those of Yathrib,

plus whoever joined with them and worked with them.

So the Ummah was not just the muslims,

but also included non-muslims who lived alongside them,

no matter whether they were polytheists or Jews,

described specifically as 'one community with the believers'.

What was important was accepting the authority of the Messenger

and his message of equality before God

and the rejection of tyranny and injustice here on earth.

Notably,

this new constitution allowed the clans to keep some of their old ways,

such as the financial arrangements for redeeming prisoners of war,

and restitution for the various bits that might get cut off or injured in a fight.

Remember, these people were very used to falling out with each other

and then everybody else joining in.

Constant warfare, raids on caravans and family feuds, were inevitably a context for

lots of petty squabbles flaring into violence,

like the wild west with knives and swords instead of guns,

and with no sheriffs to even attempt to impose some kind of law.

What the new constitution did demand, however,

was that prisoners be treated with

'the kindness and justice common among the believers'.

This constitution was individually addressed to each of the main tribes that were to accept it,

and at the same time was open to the inclusion of others

as acceptance of this way of life and belief

began to spread across the Arabian peninsula.

It brought under the authority of the Messenger

the principles of justice, taxes and social welfare,

and the limitations and obligations of defense and war.

And then the Messenger died.

And along with the rapid expansion

that came as more and more people accepted the reality of his Message

came arguments over political power,

wars and revolutions.

The community equally rapidly divided into numerous factions,

many of which can still be seen reflected in muslim politics today,

whether they be Kharijites, Mu'tazilites, Shi'a Ali, or Ahl as-Sunnah.

The political mantle of the Messenger was taken over by a variety of Imams and Caliphs

with governors acting on their behalf in charge of far away places,

but the political system of these muslims was always based on

an understanding of governance within a framework of Shari'ah law,

and the principles on which their politics was based

are still at the heart of understandings of political systems anywhere today.

These principles involve Shura,

the obligation of rulers to consult with those over whom they rule,

and Freedom of the individual under a system of Justice in which all are equal before the Law.

They also concern issues of how it is permissible to call Heads of State to account for their behaviour,

and the scope of an individuals obligation to pay taxes

I can't stress too much the importance of understanding

how politics can be set in an Islamic framework

when looking at muslim history

right through to the muslim world as we know it now.

When people are killing other human beings in the name of Islam

it is surely crucial to rigorously examine whatever it is

that they suggest is Islamic about the process.

This is not just about the political struggles that took place 1400 years ago

between whoever against whoever.

The central nature of the relationship between political power and Islam

can be seen so much closer to present times.

From the birth of Wahhabism 250 years ago,

through its Lawrence of Arabia assisted war with the Ottoman Caliphate,

to the oil-fired spread of Wahhabi/Salafi doctrines today,

from the secularisation of Turkey through struggles and coups

to issues of muslim identity at the heart of much of their current political arguments,

from post-colonial and post-war power struggles

in South and South-east Asia,

Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan,

leading to whatever claims of Islamic legitimacy

can be heard from their various opposing factions today,

from a century of assorted uprisings and revolutions in North Africa

through to the events of the Arab Spring and after,

from the rise of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq and Syria

through the establishment and then overthrow of Saddam Hussein,

to whatever political wars and alliances are happening at the moment,

from the Iranian revolution

leading to the establishment of the Islamic Republic in April 1979,

to their current arguments

concerning the relationship between political power and religion,

from the armed takeover of the Ka'aba and its haram in November 1979

by an extremist Wahhabi group,

then through the use of similar simplistic Wahhabi understandings

with the formation of the Taliban,

leading to the exploits of Osamah bin Laden,

and eventually to the growth of even more extreme 'jihadist' groups around the world,

many of whom are now even considered extreme by the Wahhabi leaders who inspired them.

From the Shi'a Sunni split of 1400 years ago

to far more recent Sunni-Shi'a struggles,

throughout muslim history,

religious understandings have always been at the heart of muslim politics,

and examining the relationship between understandings of

Islam, the Deen, and Politics

has never been more urgent

if we are to make sense of what is happening in the muslim world today.

We have to consider all recent 'Islamic' movements

in the light of the constitution

written by the Messenger

when he formed that first muslim community,

our Ummah,

and we must ask just what could be Islamic about any claim to the name Ummah

if membership of that Ummah

involves killing everyone its members disagree with.