The Islamic System and Its Difference from Theocracy
In the previous note, three differences between Islamic governance and theocracy were discussed; others will be mentioned below:
4. In the Middle Ages, the Church considered government to be its right and claimed that “government” was granted to it by God. However, how should it be governed? Does governing require compliance with specific laws and regulations? Should the government perform its duties within a limited and specific framework? It was up to the Church itself—therefore, they governed in any way they wanted and fitted. Even when there was necessity, they attributed their oppression and tyranny to Allah, and on the surface, they called it divine government. The people were also obliged to obey.
But this is not the case in an Islamic government. The Islamic ruler must govern and manage the government within a specific framework. He does not have the right to impose his desires on others and label them as decrees from Allah. Instead, he must implement the laws and decrees expressed by Allah. Unlike the theocracy, he has no authority to make what is lawful to Allah forbidden or what is forbidden to Allah lawful. The Islamic ruler is not permitted to take even a single step based solely on his personal desires. He does not have the right to alter Islamic laws and decrees. He must act only based on these Islamic laws and regulations.
5. According to medieval theocracy, the ruler was responsible only to Allah, not to the people, and Allah did not set conditions for the king nor issue a plan for his rule. Such thinking resulted in “power” that was not controlled through religious institutions or civil and social institutions, leading to corruption in governance and abuse of power. However, in Islam, the situation is completely different; in an Islamic government, the ruler is responsible both to Allah and to society. The Holy Quran also declares that one should not follow oppressive leaders—those who corrupt and do not reform the affairs of the people.
6. The relationship between the state and the nation in Islam is based on mutual rights and duties, whereas, in Western theocracy, the king has “rights” over the people, and the people only owe “duties” towards the ruler.
7. In Islam, the ruler has no superiority over other people:
«يا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ مِنْ ذَكَرٍ وَأَنْثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ» “O people, We created you from male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other. Therefore, the one who is the most pious of you in the eyes of Allah is the best; Allah is All-Knowing.” The Imam and the leadership of the nation view the people as their guardians and officials and see themselves as servants of the people, not rulers over them. Guardianship over the people in the Islamic government pertains to their hearts and minds, fundamentally differing from the rule of the Pope and the Church, and even those who claim democracy. Moreover, in the divine rule of Islam, divine law is the ruler, not the personal preferences of the Islamic ruler:
«وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِین» “And if the Prophet had spoken some things against us, We would have seized him by our power.”;
«إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى» “This speech is nothing but what is revealed to him.” While in the Middle Ages, the preferences of church rulers became law, provoking public protest and anger.
The Islamic System and Its Difference from Theocracy
Although sovereignty belongs to Allah in Islam, the laws and rulings that the Islamic state implements and enforces can be divided into three categories:
The first category: rulings that are directly proven with clear evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, on which the Islamic nation has consensus.
The second category: issues of ijtihad that jurists and mujtahids may disagree about.
The third category: issues and topics that fall within the realm of permissible matters and do not contradict Sharia, which the state wishes to turn into laws for the benefit of society. In the laws and rulings of the first type, there is no doubt that they are the rulings of Allah, and there is no possibility of error in them at all; every Muslim must accept them without question, whether he is the ruler or the condemned, and no one has the right to criticize them. In contrast, in the second type, which deals with rulings and issues of ijtihad, each mujtahid considers his opinion, deduced from the evidence of Sharia, to be correct and views it as the ruling of Sharia derived from his ijtihad. However, he acknowledges the possibility that he might have made a mistake and that the correctness of the ruling of Sharia might lie elsewhere; thus, he remains open to accepting and adjusting his opinion if someone demonstrates his error with sufficient evidence.
The third type encompasses administrative issues that are fundamentally permissible, such as certain details related to the management of peace and war, education, economic and financial matters, cultural affairs, administration and organization, etc. These are not explicit commandments from Allah grounded in the Quran and Sunnah but relate to interests of the Islamic state that can be approved and implemented, which may be beneficial for society or may lead to misjudgment regarding interests.
Thus, in the first category, the Islamic state considers itself a pure and uninvolved means of implementation, which it neither has the right to delay nor allows anyone to criticize or object to; objections are considered objections to Allah and are deemed blasphemous. In contrast, for the second and third types, it does not consider itself infallible and recognizes the possibility of error, remaining open to opinions that illustrate clearer reasoning regarding what is closer to what is right or what is more beneficial.
Hence, in Islamic governance, there is no scope for tyranny or autocracy. However, some contemporary scholars reject applying the term “theocracy” to the political system of Islam and the Islamic state. Although its original meaning referred to the rule of Allah, its custom has evolved to identify with the rule of religious leaders and spiritual authorities and conveys the tyranny and oppression associated with the Church, thus becoming a source of shame. Therefore, its application to the Islamic state is not permissible. Among those who express their aversion to applying theocracy to the political system of Islam and deem it illegitimate is Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Al-Qarzawi. He states: The Islamic civil government is not a religious government or a theocracy that imposes itself upon the hearts, feelings, and lives of people in the name of representing Allah. The Islamic government is not under the control of spiritual fathers and religious leaders who believe they are representatives of Allah or that they carry the will of heaven over the people of the earth, assuming that whatever they deem permissible, Allah also deems permissible, granting authority to every decision and decree they make as divinely sanctioned.
By admin2
