Although sovereignty in Islam belongs to Allah (SWT), the laws and rulings governing an Islamic state can, in terms of their nature, be divided into three categories:
First: Rulings that are established explicitly and definitively by the Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah and upon which the Muslim Ummah has reached consensus.
Second: Juristic rulings derived through ijtihad, concerning which differences of opinion exist among jurists and mujtahids, with each deriving a ruling on the basis of Shariah evidence.
Third: Administrative, regulatory, and executive matters that fall within the sphere of permissibility (mubah) and do not conflict with the rulings of Shariah. In these areas, the Islamic government establishes and implements the necessary laws and regulations in order to safeguard the public interest, maintain social order, and promote the welfare of society.
The rulings in the first category are definitive and immutable divine rulings, and there is no possibility of error in them. Therefore, every Muslim, whether ruler or citizen, is obliged to accept and act upon them without question. No one has the right to object to or oppose these rulings, because they have been legislated directly by Allah (SWT).
As for the second category, namely juristic rulings derived through ijtihad, every mujtahid considers the opinion he has reached on the basis of Shariah evidence to be closer to the truth; nevertheless, he also acknowledges the possibility of error in his ijtihad. Therefore, whenever its incorrectness is established through stronger and clearer evidence, he is prepared to revise his position or abandon it.
The third category includes matters related to the administration of society, such as methods of managing peace and war, education and upbringing, economic and financial affairs, cultural institutions, and other executive matters. There is no explicit text in the Qur’an or the Prophetic Sunnah concerning these matters. Rather, they are among the matters considered to fall under public interests (al-masalih al-mursalah), and the Islamic government makes decisions and legislates regarding them on the basis of the public interest and the needs of society. Therefore, although the purpose of such decisions is to secure the common good and public benefit, there remains a possibility of error in determining what constitutes the public interest.
Accordingly, in implementing the definitive divine rulings, the Islamic government regards itself merely as an executor of Shariah and has no authority to alter, suspend, or delay them. However, with regard to juristic rulings and regulatory matters, the government does not consider itself infallible and acknowledges the possibility of error. Therefore, whenever clear and valid evidence is presented demonstrating that a decision or juristic position is incorrect, it is obliged to rectify it. This principle provides a basis for consultation, accountability, and reform within Islamic governance and prevents despotism and authoritarianism.
Some contemporary scholars consider the use of the term “theocracy” for the political system of Islam and the Islamic state to be incorrect and refrain from using it. This is because, although the original meaning of the word refers to the sovereignty of God Almighty, in common usage the term has come to signify despotism, oppression, and religious and clerical coercion and has become associated with disgrace and notoriety. For this reason, applying the term to an Islamic state is considered impermissible.
Dr. Muhammad Yusuf al-Qaradawi is among those who expressed dissatisfaction with using the term “theocracy” to describe the political system of Islam and considered its use inappropriate. He states:
“An Islamic civil government is neither a religious nor a theocratic government that, claiming to act on behalf of God, dominates the hearts, feelings, and lives of people. The Islamic government is not a government of spiritual leaders or a religious class who believe that they rule over people on behalf of God or that they are representatives of the divine will on earth. Whatever they deem lawful, God would supposedly deem lawful as well, and whatever decision they make would supposedly be a decision issued from heaven.” [1]
Conclusion
The preceding discussions and analysis lead to the conclusion that the theocracy developed within Western Christianity does not, in any way, correspond to or coincide with the concept of divine sovereignty in Islam. There are numerous arguments for rejecting the view of those who claim that the two are compatible or identical. The most important of these are as follows:
The theory of theocracy in Western Christianity is not founded upon revealed teachings and authoritative religious sources. Rather, it was introduced in order to institutionalize the authority of the Church—a form of domination that the Qur’an has opposed.
Government is not the exclusive right of a ruler or sovereign to exercise as he wishes. From the Islamic perspective, the Muslim ruler must govern within a defined framework. He has no right to impose his personal desires upon others and give them a divine character. Nor does he have the right to alter, increase, or decrease Islamic rulings and laws, and he cannot legislate independently within his realm of authority without the permission of Allah Almighty. In practice, he is merely entrusted with implementing the rulings and laws of Islam.
Theocracy is a non-religious and authoritarian system, whereas the Islamic system is a thoroughly religious system whose structure, framework, objectives, laws, principles, and details are rooted in the religion itself. Moreover, the conditions, characteristics, and manner of conduct required of the ruler have also been outlined in general terms.
According to the medieval concept of theocracy, the ruler was accountable only to God, not to the people—the same God who, according to that conception, had established neither conditions for the king nor a framework for his governance. In Islam, however, the ruler is accountable both to Allah Almighty and to society.
Although, within a theocratic system, the Pope possesses absolute authority, in Islam only an imam who possesses the requisite qualifications may assume the leadership of government. Nevertheless, this superficial similarity cannot serve as evidence that theocracy corresponds to the concept of divine sovereignty in Islam. This is because Islam requires that the person at the head of society possess piety, justice, insight, administrative ability, and other necessary qualifications so that he may lead society according to the standards of Shariah, rather than on the basis of his personal desires and interests.
Therefore, the Islamic system differs from all political systems of the world in its name, identity, nature, and model. It is not appropriate to regard it as an instance of other political systems or to use foreign names and characteristics to describe it.
Although, from a purely linguistic perspective, it may be conceivable to apply the term “theocracy” to the Islamic system insofar as sovereignty belongs to Allah Almighty, and although, within the Islamic system, the people have a significant role and share in the selection, oversight, and removal of rulers, with emphasis placed on consultation (shura), justice, equality, and the preservation of civil rights and freedoms, nevertheless, applying terms such as “theocracy,” “democracy,” and “republicanism” to the Islamic system evokes associations in the minds of people with forms of oppression, corruption, and deviation for which these systems have become known in the West. Therefore, why should Islam be exposed to such baseless accusations and severe, biased criticism?
It is better to refer to the Islamic system by its own name, namely the “Islamic system,” and to refrain from adopting or borrowing foreign and inaccurate names for it.
