The Sunni View about the Ruler

By: Dr. Muhammad Masjid-Jame‘i
For the time being, I set aside the Shi‘ite view in this respect because the readers are sufficiently familiar with it. We have to see what the Sunni view is about the ruler and what it has been affected by and what effects and consequences it had in practice.
The fact is that, despite some consensus in principle among Sunnis throughout the history in this respect, the issue is not clear in all its aspects. The reason for this is also clear because this is a religious problem which, at the same time, had much friction with the political rule while those in power constantly required the religion and put pressure on it so as for the latter to recognize it, that is to say, the religion had to take a form that could respond to their wishes and desires. Perhaps no other part of religion has been so much under different types of pressure in all aspects and was never exploited so much.
Consequently, the references concerning this subject are also abundant as well as various and rather scattered and contradictory. The book Kanz al-A‘mal, which is in fact a big classified encyclopedia of Sunni tradition sayings, quotes about 400 sayings only in Kitab al-‘Imarah, which directly deals with this issue. This is a small part of the sayings available in this respect because the great part of the sayings that can be used deal with it indirectly and are not mentioned in this book.53
Without consideration to the study of the series of documents and the men of the sayings, indeed according to the Sunni rather than the Shi‘ite criteria, and by considering the subject in question and the variety and contradiction between them, it can easily be discovered that they have been subject to active forgery. Although there have been few scholars and sayings scholars who let themselves criticize these texts, this seems evident at first sight while, considering the involvement of politics; one has to say that this is also natural.
The fact that hardly anyone has dared to make such criticism is important in itself because the various issues concerning this subject have been so much subject to consensus and agreement throughout history and especially after the final defeat of the Mu‘tazilites and the taking of power by the Ash‘arites that there has principally been no question regarding the truth or falsehood of the primary references. The issue was not anymore the question whether the texts were valid according to the existing principles of statesmanship or wisdom. The issue was that any attempt to reach a different interpretation or expression was condemned in advance since it would break up the consensus of the jurisprudents, theologians and sayings scholars.
There was another problem in the meanwhile, which was the fear of accusations, especially by scholars who were directly or indirectly supported and approved by the rulers because any investigation in this respect would result in the decline of the ruler’s position and acceptability. What practically existed was the final limit of the theory that was likely to be set forth on the position of the ruler per se and in order to consolidate his position. Thus, any new attempt could not further reinforce their position and would probably help weaken them. When the thought was accepted as a principle that merely resorting to violent means and force would legalize the position of one who resorted to them by using the force of the sword and by shedding blood, therefore obeying him would be legal and any rising against him would be prohibited religiously, then here would remain no room for further strengthening to be achieved by further adjustment and collection and interpretation of the texts. Because of this, neither the ruling body would like such discussions and investigations nor their accompanying scholars. These two and other factors kept this discussion unpurified and un-criticized.
An important person who, in the middle of the third decade of the present century and simultaneously with the final fall of the Ottoman caliphate, interpreted and analyzed this problem otherwise was ‘Ali ‘Abdu’r-Razzaq, the author of the book Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, which at that time aroused a turmoil throughout the Muslim World, especially in the Arab World. He indirectly dealt with the discussion of caliphate and its historical and religious position and the subject of its religious necessity. In those days, with the fall of the Ottoman caliphate, this attracted a great deal of attention. He discussed imamate and the government by providing rejecting arguments.
The turmoil that was created by the book showed how far Sunni beliefs in such cases are un-criticizable and un-arguable. The fact is that such rows, more than—in the words of ‘Abdu’r-Razzaq’s opponents—showing the antireligious or anti-Islamic tendencies of the author or, for example, his infidelity or apostasy, show the Sunni hypersensitivity to discussions that he had criticized and analyzed. Otherwise, there were many writers at that time who doubted even the principal issues of Islam while none of them met with such severe and full-fledged reactions. It went so far that it was said, “Since the printing industry entered our countries, no book has been printed that aroused so much turmoil and evil as that aroused by ‘Abdu’r-Razzaq’s.”54

The Government and the Ruler
Prior to entering this discussion, there is a point to be noted. It is that, according to Sunnis, the government means an Islamic and religious government. Its attributes are one thing and the ruler and his qualifications are another thing. These two are two separate categories despite their internal relation and have been formed under the effect of two different series of factors.
Their view of the government is affected by the Qur’an, the Prophet’s (S) tradition and probably the heritage of the Companions. However, their view of the ruler is mainly or rather entirely affected by the historical and political situation and conditions in the first days and their later periods to early ‘Abbasid period. In clearer words, their understanding of the government is affected by the theoretical fundamentals of Islam and their understanding of the ruler per se is affected by historical realities. It might be appropriate to say that they are idealistic concerning the government while realistic about the ruler. In their view, there is no relationship between the two—quite the opposite to that of Shi‘ites—and they are of two different categories and have to be looked at differently.55
Now we have to see why it was so. Islam is a vast inclusive religion. It is a religion as well as a government, worship, law and politics. These characteristics are based on the essence of Islam as a religion. A Muslim, like a believer in any other religion, has to believe in Islam in its entirety. Because of this, the non-worshipping parts cannot be ignored. A Muslim cannot be a Muslim while forgetting these parts. If he does not wish to or cannot practice them, he cannot believe in them and be committed to them because this is contradictory to the truth of his beliefs.
However, this is one side of the issue. These are theoretical considerations that will be otherwise in practice, as they were. It is true that Islam is a religion as well as a government and it is the application of the Qur’an as well as the tradition. However, one has to see which ruler is to have control of the government and what the Qur’an and the tradition say in this respect and whether what these two say is the same as what was realized or perhaps the issue was realized otherwise, and also what the change was, why it occurred and what was its end result.
This is one of the most sensitive points where the Shi‘ite understanding and the Sunni understanding of Islam, politics, imamate and government differ strongly. The understanding by the two of the religious and worldly attributes of Islam is not different. Both believe that the worldly laws of Islam constitute part of Islam and that one has to believe in and be committed to them. Both equally believe in the necessity of Islamic government, indeed according to the relevant conditions, and they do not think much differently on the details. Their basic difference is in their view of the ruler rather than the government. According to Sunnis, the ruler is a category that is practically separate from the theory of government and all that relates to it. In the Shi‘ite view, these two are absolutely interdependent and correlated.56
In order to clarify this point, we have to take a look at the view of the two about imamate and guardianship. There, the question is not who is the Prophet’s (S) imam and guardian. The problem does not begin there. According to Shi‘ism, the problem is not basically that of the imam or guardian. The problem is the imamate and guardianship. The problem is not the person, it is the position. The problem is what position the imamate and guardianship have and, according to them, who can be the imam or guardian. In their view, the imam and caliph is one who has the qualifications for such a position. First the position is defined and delimited and then the qualified person is specified.57
This requires further explanation although this may lead us astray from the main discussion. However, there is no way but to further talk about it in order to clarify that which is of the utmost importance for a better understanding of this discussion.

The Shi‘ite View
What Shi‘ites say concerning the Prophet’s (S) guardianship and caliphate is not that the Prophet (S) appointed ‘Ali (‘a) as his successor and repeatedly emphasized it. More important than that is that basically their understanding of the issue is of special depth and extensiveness and has special attributes. In other words, the talk is not about the person and who should succeed the Prophet (S). Rather, it is mainly what the concept of the Prophet’s (S) succession is and what dimensions and attributes it has. Also, according to all of the dimensions and attributes, who can and must be appointed to this position.
The fact is that Shi‘ites, because of numerous logical and historical reasons, attach special importance to the caliphate and guardianship after the Prophet (S) and believe that it is far more important, more sensitive and more critical than political leadership in its common sense. As the leader of the Muslims, the Prophet (S) was not an ordinary leader who just had power. As a result, his successor in the position of leadership cannot be an ordinary person who just had the responsibility of politically leading the people. This is, in the first place, due to the unique characteristics of Islam.
As we said, Islam is a religion which is both a religion and a government; faith as well as politics and government. The two are connected to, dependent on and integral to each other. The Prophet’s (S) way of leadership in Medina is the best example for this. As the political leader of the society in Medina, the Prophet (S) sought to lead the society according to the teachings and orders of the Qur’an. The issue was administering the society according to the precepts of Islam rather than merely administering the people. The principle was to run the people’s affairs justly and to make the laws of Islam rule over all individual and social aspects of the people’s life. This is possible if the leader of the society has moral and spiritual merits accompanied by science and insight in religious affairs. The Prophet (S) was the best and the most perfect application of such characteristics.
The problem is who can and must succeed such leadership, who can both administer the society and seek to realize the Islamic orders in all individual and collective aspects of the people’s lives. In clearer terms, he has to have the power to administer the society within the principles and laws of Islam and without violating the same. If someone is only in charge of the political affairs of the society, does this mean that he has even the minimum qualifications?
If we accept that the Prophet (S) was worthier than a political leader in leading the people, his successor has to have qualifications and a position higher than that of a political leader. If we accept that the administration of the society according to the laws of Islam and of the Qur’an is a duty, then in all times and not just in the time of the Prophet (S), the Prophet’s (S) successor has to have the scholastic power and religious insight for carrying out such a duty. Finally, if we accept that the leader of the Islamic society that seeks to realize the orders and ideals of Islam has to have certain characteristics of spirituality and piety and be a manifestation of virtues that he seeks to realize, then certainly this principle is truer about the one who must take power after the Prophet (S).
Therefore, caliphate and guardianship of the Prophet or, in other words, the principle of imamate is of special importance to Shi‘ites. More than being about the successor and who he should be, the problem is about the subject, dimensions and concept of succession and whether one can or has to be in such a position.
It is true that the Shi‘ite belief about Imam ‘Ali’s (‘a) immediate caliphate is, in the first place, due to the explicit and repeated orders and emphases of the Prophet (S) regarding his succession, it should also be added that, since ‘Ali (‘a) has to be the immediate caliph after the Prophet (S) because he, more than anyone else has the qualifications and characteristics that are required for such a position. According to Shi‘ites, the reason why the Prophet (S) appointed ‘Ali (‘a) as his successor was his unique characteristics, that made him worthier than anyone else for that position. Such merits and qualifications made him worthy of the position. The Prophet’s selection and recommendations were a practical approval of this fact.
In brief, according to Shi‘ism, imamate and caliphate, before being about an individual, is about the position. First the position is defined and delimited and then the person to be in the position. An imam is one who has the qualifications needed for being in the position of imamate. It is not that there is a merit to imamate or caliphate, whose meaning is perceived in the light of the characteristics that the imams or caliphs had.58
However, according to Sunnism, it is the other way round. First, the person is determined and the position is defined according to his characteristics. First, the guardian and caliph are determined and then guardianship and caliphate are defined. Their view of the ruler is affected by this principle. They recognize what occurred and then define and delimit the conditions, characteristics and powers of the ruler.
According to what was said, it can briefly be said that, “The Shi‘ite and Sunni views of the government and politics and, in general, the non-worship laws of Islam, since they return to the same sources, are more or less similar. If there are differences, they are in details rather than in the principles, and it relates to their criteria in criticizing and studying the tradition since the two have different criteria in verifying the validity of sayings attributed to the Prophet. However, the views of the two concerning the ruler and his characteristics are very different. The Sunni view in this regard is recognizing the rulers that had the power in the previous centuries. Such recognition, through time, shaped and improved their jurisprudential and theological foundations in this respect. However, Shi‘ites view the problem essentially different. Their view of the ruler arises from their view of the principle of ruling as it was in the hands of the Prophet (S) and then was or had to be transferred to his successors. According to them, this ruling is one of the characteristics of prophethood and the Prophet’s mission. Since imamate and guardianship are somehow the continuation of prophethood and are in a position equal to that, the same type of ruling is applied. This continuation does not contradict the end of prophethood in Islam, which is a principle of Islam. It is exactly from this point that their thought about the ruler and his conditions, characteristics and powers is shaped and developed. From such an angle, what occurred in the early centuries lacked legality and, naturally, cannot be a criterion for discovering the rules and conditions that are to be taken into account in determining the ruler’s qualifications.
It would be appropriate to mention the Rebels here. Contrary to Sunnis and because of psychological, tribal and social reasons, they denied the status quo and then organized their view about the ruler and his qualifications based on such denial. The denial of the status quo by Shi‘ites had ideological reasons while the ideology of the Rebels was born out of the status quo.
Nevertheless, the discussion was that the view of Sunnis concerning the ruler was not that relevant to their view of the government. Their thought about the government and that the society has to be run according to the precepts and laws of Islam was affected by the Qur’an and the tradition while it was affected by historical facts regarding the ruler and his characteristics.
53. Kanz al-‘Ummal, 6, pp. 4-89.
54. Al-Islam wa’l-Khilafah fi’l-‘Aṣr al-Ḥadith, p. 31.
Despite the uproar aroused by Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, especially in religious circles, the author’s thoughts were welcomed and accepted by some religious scholars, among whom were ‘Abdu’l-Hamid Mutawalli. He did not deny the legality of the caliphate system, like ‘Abdu’r-Razzaq did, and rather believed that establishing such a system would put the Islamic ummah in difficulty and indeed the shari‘ah has prevented difficulty.
Apart from this, establishing this system is an impossible thing to do. It even has to be said that the Islam had not advised any specific system. He finally concluded that caliphate is not from Islam and is not related to it. Ma‘alim al-Khilafah fi’l-Fikr as-Siyasi al-Islami, pp. 74-5, quoting from Mutawalli’s book, Mabadi Nizam al-Hukm fi’l-Islam, pp. 548-50.
55. Whereas the political and governmental concepts and principally whatever that relates to imamate and caliphate are historical facts of early Islam in the opinion of Sunnis, and it can even be said that such concepts and definitions are not but theorizing the events of those times—which were considered as important as the religion and the Prophet’s tradition—are far more non-idealistic and realistic and conservative, so much as if they do not submit other than to the existing reality and are not willing to disturb the present situation to achieve a more desirable one. They insist so much on this that they consider taking such an action unauthorized and illegal.
The principle is that the present situation, though not ideal, is in the final analysis better than any change and has to be maintained. This, in their view, would be to the benefit of the people both in this world and in the afterworld. In this respect, see Al-Mawaqif, pp. 396-7, where it rejects the theory of those who resort to the ‘no loss’ rule to nullify the need to have a sultan or to obey him. The rejection of the author of Mawaqif is the best and shortest expression of Sunni political thought. In this respect, see A‘lam al-Mawqi‘in, 3, pp. 3-7, and especially As-Siyasat ash-Shar‘iyyah, pp. 3-17.
There were people in the meanwhile who, with full commitment to the principle, recommended social reforms if they were quiet and not disastrous, headed by Ibn Taymiyyah. Somewhere in his book, he says that the goal is the rule of the religion and this is proven by the Qur’anic verses and the religious tradition. He says, “Then, if the goal is this, one has to see which of the candidates is best suitable for realizing this goal and then choose him as the ruler.” Ibid., p. 24.
There will be many results to such a point of view. When the purpose was maintaining the status quo and reforming it so long as this does not result in a general change or probably political development, naturally the rules for recognizing the good and bad and what one has to do and not to do will change entirely. The criterion will be the existing reality rather than ideas behind it, which for example originate from or at least are inspired by the religious ideology.
Consider what Ibn Hanbal has said, as quoted by Ibn Taymiyyah, “Ibn Hanbal was asked about two men both of whom are army generals. One is a powerful roué while the other is weak and benevolent. Which of them has to go on with jihad?” He said in response, “The one who is a roué and powerful, his power is for Muslims while his bad attributes are for himself while the one who is benevolent but weak, his good attitudes are for himself while his weakness are for Muslims. Then, one has to go to jihad with the powerful roué.” Then he justifies and supplements his response by resorting to a saying from the Prophet (S), “The Prophet (S) said, “God approves this religion with roués…” p. 17.
Again, Ibn Taymiyyah says, “A great scholar was asked, ‘If for the position of a judge, there is only a corrupt wise person and a religious ignorant person, which one has a higher priority?’. He said, ‘If, due to domination of corruption, a religious person is more in demand, then the latter has priority but if, due to the complexity of legal problems, an expert is needed, the former.’” Then he adds, “As it is permissible to give lead to individuals who do not have all the qualifications if they are the best of the people, it is therefore compulsory to cooperate with them and to try to improve the conditions until what the people are looking for is realized…”, pp. 20-1.
He also says somewhere else, “Cooperation is of two types, one for the good and piety, such as cooperation for jihad, for administering punishments and rights; this is the type of cooperation that was ordered by God and His Prophet and one who, fearing that he might be doing the wrong thing, fails to do them, has failed to do a compulsory duty, assuming that he is pious while it is likely that fear and laxity may be mistaken for scrupulosity as both constitute omitting an action.
The second type of cooperation is sin and oppression, like contributing in shedding some blood or taking a respected property or beating someone who does not deserve to be beaten, and the like. This is the type of cooperation that was prohibited by God and His Prophet.”, p. 42.
Based on such an attitude, he perceives and interprets social disorders otherwise. He does not consider the sultan to be the source of corruption, attributing part of this to the people. His view is not merely political, it is sociocultural as well. The title of Chapter 3 of his book As-Siyasah ash-Shar‘iyyah is ‘On the Oppression of Governors and of the People’. Somewhere on pages 38-42, he says, “Much oppression is done by the governors and the people. They take what is not allowed and prohibit what is necessary to be done. Sometimes soldiers and farmers treat each other unjustly. Some people refuse to go on a jihad and the governors hold as treasury God’s property, which is not to be held as treasury…”, pp. 38-9.
The fact is that this way of thinking has a long history. He says, “Once a group of Kufi people went to ‘Umar to complain about the governor, Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas. He said, ‘O’ people, who of you, the Kufi people will suffice me and make me assured? If I appoint a pious person on them, they make him unable and say, ‘You have appointed a weak person as governor.’ If I appoint them a powerful person, they will mislead him and make him a traitor and say, ‘You have appointed a roué as governor.’
” Mughayrah ibn Shu‘bah was among the attendants and said, “O’, the Commander of the Faithful, the weak pious person is pious for himself and weak for you while the powerful roué is powerful for you and a roué for himself.” ‘Umar said, “You said the right thing. You are the powerful roué then go to them.”, and he appointed him as governor of Kufah, ‘Umar ibn Khattab by ‘Abdu’l-Karim al-Khatib, p. 276. Concerning Mughayrah’s personality and characteristics, see Sharh Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol. 20, pp. 8-10.
Many similar examples can be found in ‘Umar’s time. One of the best examples is reinstating Mu‘awiyah as governor of Syria and ‘Amr ibn al-‘As as governor of Egypt, both of whom were criticized by ‘Umar and ‘Umar was angry because of their conducts. However, he did not depose them because of the same reason. Ibid., pp. 272, 277. An example of such a way of thinking can be found in the words of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. See Aghrad as-Siyasah fi I‘rad ar-Riyasah by ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Samarqandi, p. 285, and also in Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, vol. 2, p. 36.
It will be too lengthy to provide the full explanation of this last point and the jurisprudential, theological and historical roots as well as its results and consequences in the next periods and in the contemporary times and its basic role in shaping the Sunni religious structure and the religious psychology of the scholars and regular people.
We only intend to mention the very important and at the same time fine and sensitive points that create a large difference between the Shi‘ite and Sunni religious structures and religious psychology as well as in their social and political developments. This difference can still be seen despite the great and fundamental developments of the recent decades. The difference will be more distinguishable with the future reduction in seeking political developments in Sunni territories, which will in any case take place for various reasons.
Gibb, Studies on the Civilization of Islam, pp. 141-66.
56. Concerning the theory of the government and the characteristics of the governor and the relation of these two in the Sunni opinion, see Min Usul al-Fikr as-Siyasi al-Islami, pp. 359-89, and also Nizam al-Islam, especially pp. 11-50, Khasa’is at-Tashri‘ al-Islami fi’s-Siyasah wa’l-Hkm by Fathi al-Durayni, pp. 263-319.
57. Concerning the Shi‘ite views of imamate and imam, see one of Imam ‘Ali’s (‘a) sermons on the subject. Sharh Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol. 8, p. 263.
58. For example, see Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Abu Ya‘la, pp. 19-25, part of which says, “Caliphate is attained with force and domination and allegiance is not needed.” “One wins with the power of the sword and calls himself the Commander of the Faithful, then one who believes in God and in the Day of Judgment shall not disobey him and refuse to consider him as imam, no matter if he is good or bad.”
Then he adds, “The prayer leading belongs to one who wins domination.” And quotes Ibn ‘Umar, who, in the horrible episode of Harrah—which in Yazid’s time resulted in the slaughter of the people and Followers and sexual violations—said his prayers behind the governors and, in response to the objectors, said, “We are with the victor.” Ibid., p. 23.
A better and clearer example can be found in the words of Ibn Hanbal; Al-A’immah al-Arba‘ah, vol. 4, pp. 119-20.