For more material on Islamic Governments, see LINKS

On Islamic Government

Q22:41 (Allah will help) Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong.

The defining characteristic of an Islamic government is its subordination to the Shari’a or Islamic law. All principles of government to be discussed below derive from these laws, as well as historical examples of their implementation by Islamic states. A government cannot legislate in areas where the Shari’a has provided laws[1]. These areas include inheritance, property rights (which also bear on taxation), certain types of criminal law, etc. In other areas where the Shari’a is silent, or else has laid down only general guidelines, the state may legislate and operate within prescribed guidelines. Citizens can (and are required by Islamic law to) refuse to obey the government in matters which are against Islamic law – obedience to God supersedes obedience to kings[2]. The judiciary, which (in ambiguous cases) decides what is and is not against the Islamic law, is independent of the executive body, and plays an extremely important role because of this status[3]. An essential feature to keep in mind, stressed by many authors, is that an Islamic state is an effort to realise the spiritual by material means through human organisation. For example, an early Islamic ‘mirror for princes’ – The Wisdom that Conduces to Royal Glory by Yusuf Hajib (ca 1070) – features a dialogue between a worldly-wise man and an ascetic, and shows how to harmonize worldly wisdom with spiritual goals. Below we discuss some of the economic functions of the Islamic state, as mandated by Islamic law, including its political organization, public finance, the judicial system, and economic security and welfare.

[1] This contrasts with modern European conceptions, according to which a government is responsible for creating and enforcing a ‘social contract’, which may consist of any set of mutually agreed upon rules. Hegel, building on political theories initiated by Machiavelli, argued that since a government is responsible for creating and maintaining the law, it is outside the law and not subject to it. Such a rationale for political authority was responsible for the extraordinary cruelty of the fascist states – see Manicas (1989) and also Harrington (1985) Politics at God’s Funeral.

[2] Note the implication that in an Islamic state, no one is justified in implementing a cruel and unjust policy (such as burning of the Jews) on the grounds that ‘I was just carrying out orders’ – for the full import of this, see Arendt’s (2006) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.

[3] Rulings by Islamic scholars on the legitimacy of governments have played an important role in Islamic history. For example, rulings in favour of British rule in India helped legitimize it, and rulings against the British supported the War of Independence in 1857. Many British policies in the Middle East were formulated in response to their fear that a ruling by the Ottoman Empire saying that Islamic law requires Muslims to act against the British could lead to widespread revolt in their Muslim colonies; see Fromkin (1991).