Since the creation of mankind, they have sought to establish systems that allow for the management of societies and the organization of relationships between people. Primitive tribal, clan, and feudal systems emerged, followed by more advanced systems such as imperial, monarchical, and republican systems. These systems may approach or avoid justice and achieve it for their citizens. Consequently, there has been recent research into a system that achieves justice, equality, and prosperity for its citizens under the name of "Good Governance," a contemporary term that emerged in the late twentieth century due to the shortcomings of governmental administrations in most countries and their failure to confront corruption and achieve development. Since then, it has been adopted in the literature and documents of the United Nations and international organizations, becoming one of the common international concepts.

Definitions of Good governance vary, but they generally agree that it refers to a system of governance based on free choice, subject to legal accountability, and working to safeguard the interests of its citizens without racial or religious discrimination, aiming to achieve their economic well-being.

Despite the novelty of the concept, it has roots in Islamic historical experience. Muslims referred to the era of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs as the "Good Caliphate," where "Goodness" in language conveys meanings of uprightness, guidance, truthfulness, and correctness, contrasting with misguidance or error. It is based on definitive texts from the Quran and Sunnah, as well as historical experience that translated these definitive texts, and theoretical frameworks and principles developed by jurists to regulate the relationship between the ruler and the subjects.

Whichever State Achieves Righteous is Legitimate Regardless of Whether it is Imperial, Monarchical, or Emirati Top of Form

The theories of jurists constitute a valid resource that can be utilized to regulate the relationship between rulers and the ruled in every era, under certain conditions, including: a profound understanding of the texts of the jurists and their intentions in accordance with the requirements of their time, a precise understanding of the demands of contemporary reality, and an attempt to bridge the gap between traditional texts and modern knowledge for the development of the structure of Islamic political theory.

In general, the jurists have elaborated on the nature of the governance system that brings people closer to righteous and further from corruption. It is important to note that they discussed the essence of governance and did not stop at its superficial aspects. They considered any state, regardless of its form; whether it was imperial, monarchical, or an emirate, legitimate if it achieves righteous. Additionally, they delved into the components upon which this good governance is based, mentioning many factors such as:

• Free Choice of the Ruler and Limitation of His Powers:

This principle has been affirmed practically through the selection process of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. The theoretical determination of this principle can be found in the discussions formulated by jurists in books of political jurisprudence under the category of "Imamate," describing it as a "contract" involving two parties. Contracts are only valid with mutual consent, and the Imamate is based on free choice. The Caliph or ruler, according to the contract, is not infallible, nor is he recipient of revelation. He does not have the right to monopolize the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah; rather, he and all scholars are equal in this regard. They only differ in the clarity of intellect and accuracy in judgment. Moreover, obedience to him is not absolute; he is obeyed as long as he follows the evidence and adheres to the path of the Quran and Sunnah. If he deviates from them in his actions, it becomes obligatory to remove him, as Imam Muhammad Abduh stated.

• Consultation (Shura):

Since the caliphate represents the authority of the lawgiver, or as Al-Mawardi defined it, "Imamate is a matter of succession to prophethood in safeguarding religion and managing worldly affairs," it is essential to consider the prophetic political practices based on the principle of consultation (Shura). How many times did the Prophet consult his companions in matters of war and politics? How many times did he change his opinion in favour of a suggestion made by one of his companions, seeing it as beneficial for the community? Therefore, jurists concluded that it is crucial for the Imam (ruler) to consult in all matters where there is no explicit text from Allah and His Messenger, nor a valid consensus to be relied upon, especially in the implementation of textual injunctions, as these may vary depending on time and place.

The Islamic Sharia has defined the principles of good governance in free choice, justice, consultation, freedom, and accountabilityTop of Form

In this sense, he is not an absolute ruler, but rather constrained by the Quran, Sunnah, and consultation, which are established by Quranic text and prophetic practice. Some scholars of the early generations even argued that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was not in need of consultation, and if it were not for the divine will making it a legal principle, Allah would not have commanded it. It should be noted in this context that the Messenger, peace be upon him, did not establish an institutional framework for practicing consultation but rather left general guidelines and principles. This is due to the variation in systems across different eras and circumstances of the Ummah, making it impossible to establish a framework suitable for all times and conditions. Otherwise, interests would be neglected, and people would be constrained in managing their social affairs.

• Justice:

It is the central value in Islam, and Allah Almighty has urged His servants to establish justice among themselves. Allah says: "Indeed, Allah commands justice, grace, as well as generosity to close relatives. He forbids indecency, wickedness, and aggression. He instructs you so perhaps you will be mindful." (Surah An-Nahl, 16:90). Based on this, jurists who have delved into the rulings of caliphate concluded that there is a "House of Justice," which is the Islamic state where the Imam is appointed to establish justice among people. This is one of his most important duties. Opposite to it is the "House of Injustice and Oppression," where governance is not according to what Allah has revealed, meaning without justice.

Justice is manifested in judiciary and arbitration, the distribution of public wealth, provision of public services, and equal opportunities without discrimination. Without justice, there is oppression, as Ibn Khaldun stated, "Oppression leads to the destruction of civilizations." One of the essential aspects of justice is equality before the law without discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims. Shariah has affirmed the principle of equality between litigants before the judiciary regardless of their religion, and there are numerous examples of this in the jurisprudential and judicial literature.

• Freedom:

It is also an Islamic value and a necessity of human existence and social interaction. Derivatives of freedom are mentioned several times in the Quran, such as freedom and liberation. The Quran provides an example illustrating the importance of freedom and its impact on human choice, as Allah says: "Allah presents an example: a slave [who is] owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah! But most of them do not know." (Surah An-Nahl, 16:75). Freedom is the basis for accountability, as there is no accountability without freedom. Many obligations are lifted in a state of slavery and coercion. Islam has guaranteed all freedoms, including political freedom, which encompasses freedom of expression, criticizing the ruler, and calling for his accountability and removal if he errs. By emphasizing freedom, Islam undermines the pillars of political tyranny.

In conclusion, Islamic Sharia has laid down the principles of a righteous good governance and defined them in terms of free choice for the ruler, justice, consultation, freedom, accountability, transparency, and more. These principles align with contemporary efforts to build what is termed as good governance.Top of Form

-------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Article in Arabic

At the onset of the twentieth century, the field of Islamic Sharia politics stayed in its original form, as formulated by the early theorists who laid the foundations of Islamic political theory. Its studies remained scattered, and the chapter on the caliphate—its most important aspect—was included within the realm of 'Ilm al-kalam (Islamic theology) rather than jurisprudence to refute the beliefs of sects and schools of thought that held deviant beliefs about it. This was only due to the reluctance of jurists to classify it, either out of fear of facing the tyranny of autocratic authority or out of adherence to caution and restraint, so as not to lead the expansion of Islamic Sharia politics to further injustices. Whatever the reasons, this led to an almost complete disconnection between Islamic political theory and reality.

However, there were new factors that compelled scholars to reconsider Islamic Sharia politics and resume the suspended classification process. In the Ottoman Empire, the political organizations adopted from Europe represented a real challenge, and it was upon the scholars to demonstrate the competence of Islamic political theory in comparison to its Western counterpart. Then, after the fall of the caliphate, they had to prove it did not meet the conditions of validity and that the emergence of nation-states did not contradict Islam.

In Egypt, there have been growing claims to separate politics from religion since the 1920s, and the consolidation of the Egyptian state provided an incentive for scholars to revive Islamic Sharia politics and introduce significant modifications and developments to make it consistent with the times.

In light of these factors, the classification movement in Islamic Sharia politics was resumed. A few works can be mentioned that emerged during the early period in both countries. In the Ottoman Empire, the book “Al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah fi Huquq al-Ra'i wa Sa'adat al-Ra'iyah” by its author Abdullah Jamal al-Dien Afandi was published, initially in Ottoman Turkish, then translated into Arabic in 1900. Additionally, “Al-Khilafah wa Sultat al-Ummah” by Abdul Ghani Al- Sinni was issued in late 1923.

In Egypt, there is the book “Al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah Aw Nizam al-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah” by Abdel Wahab Khalaf, published in 1930. Another book is “Muzakarat fi al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah,” compiled by Sheikh Muhammad Rizq al-Zalbani, a professor at the Faculty of Sharia, and published in 1953.

Reforming the Caliphate to Overcoming It

The central idea around which Jamal Afandi's book revolves is that the adoption by the Ottoman state of Western organizations does not contradict Sharia for two reasons: first, expanding political rulings is permissible based on the jurisprudential principles that allow for differences in rulings according to changing times, and it is permissible to act according to the greater good. Second, since these organizations do not contradict the fundamental Sharia principles, Europeans transferred from the people of Andalusia “Islamic legal rulings as principles, and they elaborated them in a manner that suited and benefited them... until they developed a science of human rights that took most of its principles from Islamic Sharia rulings and principles, thus resembling Islamic freedom.”

Despite this arbitrary association between European organizations and Islam, there remained two questions that Abdul Rahman Afandi needed to answer: First, explaining the decline, or, in other words, why did Islamic countries become continuously weak and experience significant decline, despite the fact that Sharia politics ensures the good governance of kingdoms? He attributed this to internal factors such as disunity among Muslims and the prevalence of a culture of dependency among them, as well as external factors such as the aggression of European countries against Islamic countries.

The second question relates to the methods of reform and the necessary measures to reform Islamic governments, assuming that the way to do this is to strengthen the unity of religion among the people subject to the Islamic Caliphate and to revive independent Islamic states such as the Ottoman Empire and Iran by reforming their internal affairs according to the guidance of the Prophet's Sharia. This can only be achieved by “drafting a comprehensive journal on the principles of Sharia politics, reviewing reputable books, and applying conditions and matters according to the requirements of time and place.”

Afandi's conclusions differ from those of Al-Sinni in his book “Al-Khilafah wa Sultat al-Ummah,” which was published about a quarter of a century later. Al-Sinni argued that the caliphate is “a subsidiary and jurisprudential issue, unrelated to belief,” but rather a worldly and political issue more than a religious one. Therefore, there are no details concerning it, as the Quran or the prophetic Hadiths do not explicitly mention the method of appointing a caliph, the conditions of the caliphate, or whether the Islamic Ummah in different times and conditions must appoint a caliph or not. This implies the non-necessity of establishing the caliphate and the possibility of legitimate acceptance of modern nation-states.

The Integration of the Nation-State into the Structure of Sharia Politics

As to Abdul Wahab Khalaf's book, it was published by the Salafi Press in Cairo in 1930. It outlines the reasons that prompted him to focus on Sharia politics and document them. In 1923, he was assigned to teach a new subject at the School of Sharia Law, namely Sharia politics, which emerged in response to King Fuad's interest in the issue of the Islamic caliphate. Khalaf states, “We began teaching this emerging science with only its curriculum in hand, which comprises several studies on various topics. Therefore, it was necessary to create a unit to organize these subjects, to understand the framework that defines Sharia politics, to distinguish the research subject within it, and to determine its ultimate goal.”

Based on that, Khalaf was described as the first to formulate modern formulations of Islamic Sharia politics, and this description is not without merit. He redefined Islamic political concepts, particularly Sharia politics, and mapped out the topics falling under them. He studied sensitive issues and reinterpreted them in a new way, such as the relationship between the land of Islam and the land of war, the relationship between the Islamic state and foreign states, and the status of dhimmis in the modern Islamic state. He ventured into unprecedented interpretations when he considered that obligating them to wear a special dress was not from Islam. He also discussed the issue of freedom of belief, arguing that Islam recognized this freedom and left it to each individual to believe according to his own understanding.

However, these interpretations did not touch upon the issue of the caliphate, as he remained a believer in its obligation according to Sharia and defended its existence based on three arguments: the consensus of the companions on appointing a caliph after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), that what is obligatory, such as protecting the borders and establishing the boundaries, can only be done through it, and that it serves to repel harm and bring benefits.

However, he was keen to remove any religious sanctity from this position and from those who hold it. “The general guardianship of the caliph and its inclusion in religious affairs does not make the caliph a religious figure or derive his authority from hidden power, but he is just an individual among the Muslims in whom they trust his competence to safeguard religion and worldly affairs.”

Although Sheikh Khalaf attempted to remove the exaggerated sanctity surrounding the caliphate and to redefine the relationship between citizens and the caliph, he did not reach the point of suggesting a modern formulation for it, as Sunhuri did, nor did he completely exclude it. He did not speak of “constitutional Sharia government” as Sheikh Rizq al-Zalbani did in the mid-twentieth century when he taught the subject of Sharia politics to Al-Azhar students without mentioning the caliphate, justifying this exclusion by stating that “Sharia politics is based on promoting interests, so it necessarily does not adhere to a specific path or limit itself to fixed boundaries, but it must change whenever the interests change according to times or places.” This reveals the extent of the evolution that has occurred in the science of Sharia politics in the past few decades.Top of Form

-------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Article in Arabic