Divine judgment and the sovereignty of the nation .. scrutiny

Some still pose a delusional opposition between governance and sovereignty, as some Islamists object to secularism and democracy from the fact that they decide the human state and affirm the sovereignty of the nation, while Islam decides that the ruling is God.

Some secularists are calling for the adoption of a comprehensive secularism that refuses to have an Islamic reference state, and emphasizes - at best - respecting religion, but with its limitation in the private sphere. To what extent is this contradiction and that correspondence correct?

Let us start first by shedding light on the two concepts and their different shades. The concept of sovereignty is defined by Professor Allal Al-Fassi - may God have mercy on him - saying: “What is meant by sovereignty in constitutional laws is what the ruling is based on, i.e. the legislative source from which the law or the ruler derives the right to comply with its order, and to work with legislation issued Or take measures (...). And the politicians of the world, and if they agree on the existence of the necessary sovereignty to support the rule and its legitimacy, then they did not agree on its source and foundation, some of them considered it a natural right, and some of them considered it a religious authority by the clergy, and some of them made it self for the kings With what they have on behalf of God, which is what he called b Divine right "; (Allal El Fassi," the purposes of the law ", p. 213).

It is clear that the idea of ​​the ruler regaining power directly from God is a strange idea that is completely alien to the Islamic conception, as we explained earlier. This is confirmed by the tendency of Islamic jurisprudence to make the Imamate one of the sent interests, and the general trend of Islamic thinkers from “Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a” was rejected by the idea of ​​the will; as we demonstrated earlier when we talked about the civil nature of the Islamic state.

This is evidenced by - before that - the adult caliphs refused to call themselves the successors of God, but Abu Bakr considered himself a successor to the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him, and the theory of the holy royal right was not leaked except with some Abbasid caliphs who confirmed that they are ruling under a mandate from God, as it appears From the words of Abu Jaafar Al-Mansour: “I am the Sultan of God in His land.”

As for the theory of natural right, it is - as Professor Allal El Fassi says - just a hypothesis that does not have a positive impact, as evidenced by the use of each of the political doctrines to demonstrate his opinion.

The basis of rule in the Islamic state is the will of the people, and the sovereignty of the nation is exercised through the people of the solution and the contract, for "the pledge of allegiance to the imam takes place - with the agreement of the scholars of speech - with the pledge of allegiance to the people of the solution and the contract because the imam is the agent of the nation, and they are the ones who give him the authority of the nation, and they possess it And his isolation because the caliph's power is the ummah, but his authority derives from it, and that Muslims are the first nation to say that the ummah is the source of all powers ”((Alal Al-Fassi,“ Purposes of Sharia ”, p. 218).

But how can one acknowledge the nation’s sovereignty while also acknowledging the supreme divine judgment? The idea of ​​al-Hakmiyya has been enlarged in the perception of some Islamic thinkers - especially to Abu al-Ala al-Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb - to the extent that he made them decide that it is one of the most important characteristics of divinity, but the concept of al-Hakmiyyah as used by both al-Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb does not include all the characteristics of divinity and the meanings of slavery, as indicated by this. Allama Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadawi

Legislative and legal submission is not sufficient unless it is accompanied by the purpose of love and the goal of contentment and surrender to the law of God, and the result is that the achievement of legal and legislative governance - that is, at the political and institutional level - does not achieve complete slavery unless it is due to satisfaction and self-submission to God’s law, not from Just submissive subjugation and obedience.

On the basis of this, it is not possible to separate judgment and arbitration, that is, judgment is achieved only by voluntary human arbitration of the law of God, an arbitration accompanied by the full conviction, contentment and surrender arising from the divinization of the heart to the Lord, its deification will be coupled with the fulfillment of love, glorification, reverence, honor, fear, hope, and the like; and also Ibn Taymiyyah says.

And one who looks at the verses that included the issue of judgment and arbitration notes that it has come to refer to the role of both the ruler and the ruled: the ruler who should implement God’s judgment, and the ruled who should rule and judge according to God’s law. Sometimes it is referred to the governor as in the verse: (and judge them what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires and beware of them to Evtnok some of what Allah revealed to you if they turn away, know me that God wants to suffer some of their sins and that many of the adulterers people); (Surah Table / verse: 49).

Like the verse: (so judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires what comes to you from the right of all made you Bill and the curriculum); (table / verse: 48), and says: (the Jak judge between them or introduce them and present them will not Something that hurts you ۖ And if you judge, judge them among installments ۚ Indeed, God loves those who are in need.) (Al-Ma'idah / Verse: 42).

And sometimes are referred to the convicted person is linked to judgment Balthakm, ie, the will of the governed positively or negatively; the Almighty said (not seen those who claim that they believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you want to resort to the idol was ordered to make amends by Satan and wants to be deceived them far astray (; Women / Verse: 60). The Almighty said: (Do not believe in your Lord until they judge you about what trees have been between them, then do not find in themselves an embarrassment of what happened)

The first conclusion is that governance does not make sense unless it is based on an arbitration coupled with contentment, surrender, and certainty: (Possibility of ignorance, they desire ۚ and whoever is better than God is a judge of certainty: 50).

The second conclusion is that there is no religious benefit to be forced from the coercion of an individual or society to implement the law and he does not believe in it. In other words, it is meaningless to apply the rule of Sharia under compulsion in a society that is not surrendered to its rule, which is certain that it is good, and does not find any psychological embarrassment in its rulings prevailing. Accordingly, there is no conflict between the principle of governance and the principle of sovereignty within an Islamic society for several considerations:

A- That governance - in such a community - is primarily God, and it is a contractual issue and social surrender that should be stipulated in the constitution, when it determines the principle of Islamic state and the rule of Sharia over other laws.

B- That the principle of governance does not take its real significance by subjugating the Sultan, but rather by submitting to faith, that is, by surrender and voluntary arbitration of the law of Islam. Divine judgment is a principled contractual issue, but it only takes its path to reality through the surrender, conviction, and consent of the nation.

A- The Muslim people are the source of powers within the framework of the larger constitution, which is the Holy Qur’an. The detailed constitutions in Islamic society take their legitimacy only to the extent of their conformity with the supreme constitution, or the supreme authority that transcends the constitution itself and other laws.

Professor Allal El-Fassi says: “The bond of rule in the Islamic state is the will of the Muslim people, and the bond of the nation in obtaining this power is the written constitution, which is the Qur’an. El-Fassi, “The Purposes of Sharia”, p. 219).

It should be noted that the legalization of the nation’s sovereignty within the constitutional framework - which expresses the identity of the nation, its ideology and culture - is a matter present in the most ancient democratic countries that recognize the sovereignty of the nation. We do not envision a sovereign state in France, such as France, that might lead to a breach of the constitutional rule that the principle of secularism in France is not subject to review, or the inability of a party inviting property in France, given its contradiction with the constitutional rule that recognizes secularism and the republican system.