The Islamic System and Its Difference from Theocracy
Transformations in the Theory of Theocracy
Theocracy has undergone formal changes and fluctuations over time, which we will explain below:
1. Divine Rulers: In this form, rulers are considered gods and possess a divine nature, as seen with the pharaohs of Egypt and the emperors of ancient Rome.
2. Rulership Based on God’s Choice: After the emergence of Christianity, the theocratic theory underwent profound changes and adjustments. During this period, discussions shifted focus from the divine nature of rulers to the belief that rulers are fundamentally no different from other humans, except that they are chosen by God (Allah) and are only accountable to Him, not to the people.
3. Rulership According to God’s (Allah) Will and Providence: Over subsequent centuries, the theocratic theory evolved further. By this time, the focus was no longer on the divine nature of rulers or their direct appointment by God (Allah); instead, it was argued that while the appointment of rulers is a human matter, it occurs through divine providence. Although this theory recognizes unlimited power for rulers, it does not necessarily view it as oppressive. According to this perspective, since rulers are chosen by God (Allah), who is just, they are obligated to adhere to His commands and uphold justice.
Theocracy in its first two forms excludes any public involvement in the appointment of rulers, paving the way for individual authoritarian rule. However, the third form is much closer to democracy; it can be easily accepted in a democratic context that the people’s choice aligns with God’s (Allah) will when they elect someone as their representative. This idea has inspired some political groups, particularly Christian Democratic parties in European countries.
The pertinent question arises: Is the theory of divine sovereignty proposed by Islam the same as the medieval theocracy? Just as, according to theocracy, God (Allah) grants rulers’ broad powers to govern as they see fit, does this theory hold in the concept of divine sovereignty in Islam?
Some argue that divine sovereignty in Islam mirrors medieval theocracy and assert that the only way to transcend this state is through fundamental reform.
In response to this fundamental question and this unfounded claim, we present some critiques of the alleged divine sovereignty in medieval Christianity and explain the genuine and true divine sovereignty envisioned by Islam:
1. This view of divine sovereignty does not stem from revelation or authentic religious sources; instead, it is merely a reflection of the governance processes at significant historical junctures that attribute authority to God (Allah). When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the church gained unprecedented autonomy, and the interrelationship between spiritual leadership and political authority became central to political thought.
2. Claiming Divine Representation: The authority of the ruler was based not only on biblical texts but also aimed at institutionalizing the church’s dominance, especially with the conversion of the Roman Emperor to Christianity. Even if they attributed it to the Bible, such beliefs were ultimately creations of their own. The Holy Quran is the last book of guidance, preserved from distortion and change for solid reasons and evidence, and it strongly opposes the views of Christian scholars who consider themselves mediators between God (Allah) and the people. In some verses, the Quran invites the People of the Book to avoid polytheism and refrain from recognizing any lord other than God (Allah):
«قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْا إِلَى كَلَمَةٍ سَوَاء بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَكُمْ أَلَّا نَعْبُدَ إِلَّا اللَّهَ وَلَا نُشْرِكَ بِهِ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَتَّخِذَ بَعْضُنَا بَعْضًا أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ» “Say, ‘O People of the Book, come to a word that is common between us and you: that we worship none but Allah alone, and that we associate none with Him, and that none of us takes others as gods.'”
In another verse, the Lord of the Worlds criticizes Christians for referring to scholars and monks as “gods” and for calling Jesus Christ the son of God (Allah), failing to guide them to the truth of what they were commanded in Christianity—that is, to believe in monotheism and avoid any form of polytheism and superstition:
«اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَهاً وَاحِدًا لا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ» “They took their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and also the Messiah, the son of Mary, while they were not commanded except to worship Allah alone. There is no god but Him. Glory be to Him above what they associate with Him.”
3. The Qur’an, in rejecting any expression of servitude to anyone other than God (Allah) and affirming His sole sovereignty, states: «وَلَا تَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَهًا آخَرَ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكُ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ لَهُ الْحُكْمُ وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ» “Do not call upon any other deity alongside Allah, for there is no deity but Him; everything is mortal except for His essence. Sovereignty belongs to Him alone, and to Him you will all be returned.”
Therefore, belief in divine representation in matters of governance is a deviation from the truths of heavenly religions. A government based on the false notion of divine representation, defended and supported by Christian propagandists during the Middle Ages, cannot be regarded as a manifestation of religious sovereignty.
It should be noted that the concept of divine representation is entirely different from the divine caliphate emphasized in the Quran. The caliphate of a perfect human being does not imply that a portion of the realm is devoid of God (Allah) or that God’s (Allah) divinity and lordship are transferred to them. The absence and limitation of God (Allah) cannot be conceived, nor can a human be independent in managing affairs. A finite being is incapable of managing their own affairs, let alone those of others independently. The legitimacy of sovereignty and the exercise of power are achieved only when they align with God’s (Allah) legislative will; therefore, it is inappropriate to rely solely on God’s (Allah) creative will to justify the divine nature of sovereignty.
In Islam, legitimate sovereignty implies that: first, rulers hold divine faith; second, they implement and defend divine values; third, they make divine legislation the criterion for governance; and fourth, they adhere to the principles of divine religion in their administration.
Human sovereignty over their own destiny finds its meaning within human relationships and is distinct from relationships with God (Allah). Based on this grant, humans regard themselves as free from any will, even that of God (Allah), in determining their individual and collective good, ultimately seeking the highest purpose of their creation, which is divine nearness:
« يا أيهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اسْتَجِيبُواْ لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُم لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ » “O you who have believed, respond to Allah and the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.”
« وَمَن يُسْلِمْ وَجْهَهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى » “Whoever surrenders himself to Allah while being a good person has grasped a strong handhold.”
« وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَن يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ » “No believing man or woman has the right to oppose Allah’s command when Allah and His Messenger deem it necessary.”
« فَلْيحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يَخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَن تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةً أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ » “So let those who oppose His command beware lest a fitnah befall them, or a painful punishment befall them.”
Thus, the members of the Islamic Ummah, guided by rational obligations and religious emphasis, should strengthen all their social and political foundations based on divine sovereignty and legislative guardianship.
By admin2
