Editing Political aspects of Islam (section)

===Early Caliphate and political ideals===
{{Main|Caliphate}}
{{Further|Islamic ethics|Islamic leadership}}
[[File:Map of expansion of Caliphate.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|[[Early Muslim conquests]], 622–750:
{{legend|#a1584e|Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632}}
{{legend|#ef9070|Expansion under the [[Rashidun Caliphate|Rāshidūn Caliphate]], 632–661}}
{{legend|#fad07d|Expansion under the [[Umayyad Caliphate]], 661–750}}
]]

After the [[death of Muhammad]] in 632 CE, his community needed to appoint a new leader, giving rise to the title of ''[[caliph]]'' ({{langx|ar|خَليفة|translit=khalīfa|lit=successor}}).<ref name="Polk 2018"/><ref name="Van-Ess 2017">{{cite book |author-last=van Ess |author-first=Josef |year=2017 |chapter=Setting the Seal on Prophecy |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=viRoDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 |title=Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra, Volume 1: A History of Religious Thought in Early Islam |translator-last=O'Kane |translator-first=John |location=[[Leiden]] and [[Boston]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |series=Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1: The Near and Middle East |volume=116/1 |pages=3–7 |doi=10.1163/9789004323384_002 |isbn=978-90-04-32338-4 |issn=0169-9423}}</ref><ref name="Lewis1995a">{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Bernard |author-link=Bernard Lewis |year=1995 |chapter=Part III: The Dawn and Noon of Islam – Origins |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CjAABdA9z18C&pg=PA51 |title=The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years |location=[[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Charles Scribner's Sons|Scribner]] |pages=51–58 |isbn=9780684832807 |oclc=34190629}}</ref> Thus, the subsequent Islamic empires were known as "[[caliphate]]s",<ref name="Van-Ess 2017"/><ref name="Lewis1995a"/><ref name="Pakatchi-Ahmadi 2017">{{cite encyclopedia |author1-last=Pakatchi |author1-first=Ahmad |author2-last=Ahmadi |author2-first=Abuzar |year=2017 |title=Caliphate |translator-last=Asatryan |translator-first=Mushegh |editor1-last=Madelung |editor1-first=Wilferd |editor2-last=Daftary |editor2-first=Farhad |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia Islamica |location=[[Leiden]] and [[Boston]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |doi=10.1163/1875-9831_isla_COM_05000066 |issn=1875-9823}}</ref> and a series of four caliphs governed the early Islamic empire: [[Abu Bakr|Abū Bakr]] (632–634), [[Umar ibn al-Khattab|ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb]] (Umar І, 634–644), [[Uthman ibn Affan|ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān]] (644–656), and [[Ali|ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib]] (656–661). These leaders are known as the ''[[Rashidun|rāshidūn]]'' ("rightly-guided") caliphs in [[Sunni Islam|Sunnī Islam]].<ref name="Lewis1995a" /> They oversaw the initial phase of the [[early Muslim conquests]], advancing through [[Muslim conquest of Persia|Persia]], [[Muslim conquest of the Levant|the Levant]], [[Muslim invasion of Egypt|Egypt]], and [[Muslim conquest of the Maghreb|North Africa]].<ref name="Lewis1995a" />

Alongside the growth of the [[Umayyad Caliphate]], the major political development within early Islam in this period was the sectarian split and political divide between [[Kharijites|Kharijite]], [[Sunni Islam|Sunnī]], and [[Shia Islam|Shīʿa]] [[Muslims]]; this had its roots in a dispute over the succession for the role of caliph.<ref name="Van-Ess 2017"/><ref name="Izutsu 2006">{{cite book |last=Izutsu |first=Toshihiko |author-link=Toshihiko Izutsu |year=2006 |origyear=1965 |title=The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology: A Semantic Analysis of Imān and Islām |chapter=The Infidel (''Kāfir''): The Khārijites and the origin of the problem |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PDxHG5MtLawC&pg=PA1 |location=[[Tokyo]] |publisher=Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies at [[Keio University]] |pages=1–20 |isbn=983-9154-70-2}}</ref> Sunnīs believed the caliph was elective and any Muslim from the Arab clan of [[Quraysh]], the tribe of Muhammad, might serve as one.<ref name="Lewis1995b">{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Bernard |year=1995 |chapter=Part IV: Cross-Sections – The State |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CjAABdA9z18C&pg=PA139 |title=The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years |location=[[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Charles Scribner's Sons|Scribner]] |page=139 |isbn=9780684832807 |oclc=34190629}}</ref> Shīʿītes, on the other hand, believed the title of caliph should be hereditary in the [[Ahl al-Bayt|bloodline of Muhammad]],<ref name="jaarel 2015">{{cite journal |last=Foody |first=Kathleen |date=September 2015 |title=Interiorizing Islam: Religious Experience and State Oversight in the Islamic Republic of Iran |editor-last=Jain |editor-first=Andrea R. |journal=[[Journal of the American Academy of Religion]] |volume=83 |issue=3 |pages=599–623 |doi=10.1093/jaarel/lfv029 |doi-access=free |location=Oxford |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] on behalf of the [[American Academy of Religion]] |eissn=1477-4585 |issn=0002-7189 |jstor=24488178 |lccn=sc76000837 |oclc=1479270 |quote=For Shiʿi Muslims, [[Muhammad]] not only designated [[Ali|ʿAlī]] as his friend, but appointed him as his [[Succession to Muhammad|successor]]—as the “lord” or “master” of the new [[Ummah|Muslim community]]. ʿAlī and [[Family tree of Ali|his descendants]] would become known as [[Imamah (Shia doctrine)|the Imams]], divinely guided leaders of the Shiʿi communities, sinless, and granted [[Tafsir|special insight into the Qurʾanic text]]. The theology of the Imams that developed over the next several centuries made little distinction between the authority of the Imams to politically lead the Muslim community and their spiritual prowess; quite to the contrary, their right to political leadership was grounded in their special spiritual insight. While in theory, the only just ruler of the Muslim community was the Imam, the Imams were politically marginal after the first generation. In practice, Shiʿi Muslims negotiated varied approaches to both interpretative authority over [[Islamic holy books|Islamic texts]] and governance of the community, both during the lifetimes of the Imams themselves and even more so following the [[Occultation (Islam)|disappearance]] of the [[Muhammad al-Mahdi|twelfth and final Imam]] in the ninth century.}}</ref> and thus all the caliphs, with the exceptions of Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law [[Ali|ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib]] and his firstborn son [[Hasan ibn Ali|Ḥasan]], were actually illegitimate [[usurper]]s.<ref name="Lewis1995b" /> However, the Sunnī sect emerged as triumphant in most regions of the [[Muslim world]], with the exceptions of [[Iran]] and [[Oman]]; thus, most modern Islamic political ideologies and movements are founded in Sunnī thought. [[Companions of the Prophet|Muhammad's closest companions]] (''ṣaḥāba''), the four "[[Rashidun|rightly-guided]]" caliphs who succeeded him, continued to expand the Islamic empire to encompass [[Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)|Jerusalem]], [[Siege of Ctesiphon (637)|Ctesiphon]], and [[Muslim invasion of Damascus|Damascus]], and sending Arab Muslim armies as far as the [[Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent|Sindh region]].<ref>[http://alcor.concordia.ca/~shannon/201Lec02images_files/image004.jpg] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050930020401/http://alcor.concordia.ca/~shannon/201Lec02images_files/image004.jpg |date=September 30, 2005}}</ref> The early Islamic empire stretched from [[al-Andalus]] (Muslim Iberia) to the [[Muslim invasion of India|Punjab region]] under the reign of the [[Umayyad Caliphate|Umayyad dynasty]].

An important Islamic concept concerning the structure of ruling is the ''[[shura]]'' or "consultation" with people regarding their affairs, which is the duty of rulers mentioned in two [[Quran|Quranic verses]]: {{Cite Quran|3|153|expand=no|style=nosup}} and {{Cite Quran|42|36|expand=no|style=nosup}}.<ref name="Lewis1995c">{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Bernard |year=1995 |chapter=Part IV: Cross-Sections – The State |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CjAABdA9z18C&pg=PA141 |title=The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years |location=[[New York City|New York]] |publisher=[[Charles Scribner's Sons|Scribner]] |pages=141–143 |isbn=9780684832807 |oclc=34190629}}</ref> One type of ruler not part of the Islamic ideal was the [[king]], which was disparaged in the Quranic mentions of the [[Pharaoh]], "the prototype of the unjust and tyrannical ruler" ({{Cite Quran|18|70|expand=no|style=nosup}}, {{Cite Quran|18|79|expand=no|style=nosup}}) and elsewhere ({{Cite Quran|28|34|expand=no|style=nosup}}).<ref name="Lewis1995c"/> The phrase ''Ahl al-Ḥall wa’l-‘Aḳd'' ({{langx|ar|أهل الحلّ والعقد|lit=those who are qualified to unbind and to bind}} or sometimes 'the people of the solution and the contract') was used in order to denote those qualified to appoint or depose a caliph or another ruler on behalf of the Ummah.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Ahl al-Ḥall wa'l-ʿAḳd |year=1960 |editor1-last=Bosworth |editor1-first=C. E. |editor1-link=Clifford Edmund Bosworth |editor2-last=van Donzel |editor2-first=E. J. |editor2-link=Emeri Johannes van Donzel |editor3-last=Heinrichs |editor3-first=W. P. |editor3-link=Wolfhart Heinrichs |editor4-last=Lewis |editor4-first=B. |editor5-last=Pellat |editor5-first=Ch. |editor5-link=Charles Pellat |editor6-last=Schacht |editor6-first=J. |editor6-link=Joseph Schacht |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopaedia of Islam#2nd edition, EI2|Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition]] |location=[[Leiden]] |publisher=[[Brill Publishers]] |volume=1 |doi=10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_0381 |isbn=978-90-04-16121-4 |pages=263–264}}</ref> Olivier Roy writes that {{blockquote|Classical Islamic thought is overflowing with treatises on governing, advice to sovereigns, and didactic tales. They do not reflect on the nature of politics, but on the nature of the good ruler and of good government (advice, techniques, paradigms, anecdotes).<ref>Roy, Olivier, ''The Failure of Political Islam'' by Olivier Roy, translated by Carol Volk, Harvard University Press, 1994, p.29</ref>
}}

====Election or appointment====
{{Further|Islam and democracy}}

[[Al-Mawardi]], a Sunnī Muslim jurist of the [[Shafiʽi school|Shāfiʿī school]] of [[Fiqh|Islamic jurisprudence]], wrote that the caliph should be a member of the [[Quraysh (tribe)|Quraysh]] tribe. [[Al-Baqillani|Abu Bakr al-Baqillani]], an [[Ash'ari|Ashʿarī]] Sunnī Muslim scholar and [[Maliki|Mālikī]] jurist, wrote that the leader of the Muslims simply should be elected from the majority. [[Abu Hanifa an-Nu‘man]], the founder of the Sunnī [[Hanafi|Ḥanafī school]], also wrote that the leader must come from the majority.<ref name=2muslims>[http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/225505.shtml Process of Choosing the Leader (Caliph) of the Muslims: The Muslim Khilafa: by Gharm Allah Al-Ghamdy] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707062249/http://www.2muslims.com/directory/Detailed/225505.shtml |date=2011-07-07 }}</ref>

Western scholar of Islam, [[Fred Donner]],<ref>''The Early Islamic Conquests'' (1981)</ref> argues that the standard Arabian practice during the early caliphates was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader's death and elect a leader from amongst themselves, although there was no specified procedure for this ''[[shura]]'', or consultative assembly. Candidates were usually from the same lineage as the deceased leader but they were not necessarily his sons. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual direct heir, as there was no basis in the majority Sunnī view that the head of state or governor should be chosen based on lineage alone.

====''Majlis ash-Shura''====
Deliberations in the politics of the early caliphates, most notably the [[Rashidun Caliphate|Rāshidūn Caliphate]], were not "democratic" in the modern sense of the term; rather, decision-making power laid with a council (''[[shura]]'') of notable and trusted [[Companions of the Prophet|companions of Muhammad]] (''ṣaḥāba'') and representatives of different [[Tribes of Arabia|Arab tribes]] (most of them selected or elected within their tribes).<ref>Sohaib N. Sultan, [http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article04.shtml Forming an Islamic Democracy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041001023746/http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article04.shtml |date=2004-10-01 }}</ref> Traditional Sunnī Muslim jurists agree that the ''shura'', loosely translated as "consultation", is a function of the Islamic caliphate. The ''[[Majlis-ash-Shura]]'' advise the caliph. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Quran:
<blockquote>{{Cite Quran|42|38|expand=no|quote=...those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer, and who conduct their affairs by Shura. [are loved by God]}}</blockquote>
<blockquote>{{Cite Quran|3|159|expand=no|quote=...consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah}}</blockquote>

The ''[[majlis]]'' were also the means to elect a new caliph. Al-Mawardi wrote that members of the ''majlis'' should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, they must have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also stated that in case of emergencies when there is no caliphate and no ''majlis'', the people themselves should institute a council of ''majlis'', select a list of candidates for the role of caliph, then the ''majlis'' should select from the list of candidates.<ref name=2muslims/>{{Unreliable source?|date=April 2019}}

Some modern political interpretations regarding the role of the ''Majlis ash-Shura'' include those expressed by the Egyptian Islamist author and ideologue [[Sayyid Qutb]], prominent member of the [[Muslim Brotherhood]], and the Palestinian Muslim scholar and propagandist [[Taqiuddin al-Nabhani]], founder of the [[Pan-Islamism|pan-Islamist]] political party [[Hizb ut-Tahrir]].<ref name="Shavit 2010">{{cite journal |last=Shavit |first=Uriya |date=August 2010 |title=Is ''Shura'' a Muslim Form of Democracy? Roots and Systemization of a Polemic |journal=[[Middle Eastern Studies (journal)|Middle Eastern Studies]] |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=349–374 |doi=10.1080/00263200902917085 |issn=1743-7881 |lccn=65009869 |oclc=875122033 |s2cid=145304876}}</ref> In an analysis of the ''shura'' chapter of the Quran, Qutb argued that Islam requires only that the ruler consult with at least some of the ruled (usually the elite), within the general context of [[Sharia|divine laws]] that the ruler must execute. Al-Nabhani argued that the ''shura'' is important and part of "the ruling structure" of the Islamic caliphate, "but not one of its pillars", and may be neglected without the caliphate's rule becoming un-Islamic. However, these interpretations formulated by Qutb and al-Nabhani are not universally accepted in the Islamic political thought, and [[Islamic democracy|Islamic democrats]] consider the ''shura'' to be an integral part and important pillar of Islamic political system.<ref name="Shavit 2010"/>

====Separation of powers====
{{Further|Islam and secularism|Islamic ethics}}

In the early Islamic caliphates, the caliph was the [[head of state]], and had a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad's political authority, who, according to [[Sunni Islam|Sunnī Muslims]], were ideally elected by the people or their representatives,<ref>''Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World'' (2004), vol. 1, p. 116-123.</ref> as was the case for the election of [[Abu Bakr|Abū Bakr]] (632–634), [[Uthman ibn Affan|ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān]] (644–656), and [[Ali|ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib]] (656–661). After the ''rāshidūn'' caliphs, later caliphates during the [[Islamic Golden Age]] had a much lesser degree of democratic participation, but since "no one was superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue" in Islam, and following the example of Muhammad, later Islamic rulers often held [[public consultation]]s with the people in their affairs.<ref>{{cite book|title=Justice Without Frontiers|first=Christopher G.|last=Judge Weeramantry|year=1997|publisher=[[Brill Publishers]]|isbn=90-411-0241-8|pages=135}}</ref>

The legislative power of the caliph (or later, the [[sultan]]) was always restricted by the scholarly class, the ''[[ulama]]'', a group regarded as the guardians of [[Sharia|Islamic law]]. Since the ''sharia'' law was established and regulated by the [[Madhhab|schools of Islamic jurisprudence]], this prevented the caliph from dictating legal results. ''Sharia''-compliant rulings were established as authoritative based on the ''[[ijma]]'' (consensus) of legal Muslim scholars, who theoretically acted as representatives of the entire ''[[Ummah]]'' (Muslim community).<ref name=Feldman2008>{{cite news |last=Feldman |first=Noah |date=March 16, 2008 |title=Why Shariah? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?&pagewanted=all |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2008-10-05}}</ref> After law colleges (''[[madrasa]]'') became widespread beginning with the 11th and 12th century CE, students of Islamic jurisprudence often had to obtain an ''[[Ijazah|ijaza-t al-tadris wa-l-ifta]]'' ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") in order to issue valid legal rulings.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Makdisi |first=George |date=April–June 1989 |title=Scholasticism and Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West |journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society |volume=109 |issue=2 |pages=175–182 [175–77] |doi=10.2307/604423|jstor=604423 }}</ref> In many ways, classical Islamic law functioned like a [[constitutional law]].<ref name=Feldman2008/>

Practically, for hundreds of years after the fall of the [[Rashidun Caliphate|Rāshidūn Caliphate]] (7th century CE) and until the first half of the 20th century, [[Muslim-majority countries]] usually adopted a system of government based on the coexistence of the [[sultan]] and ''[[ulama]]'' which followed the rules of the ''sharia'' law. This system resembled to some extent some Western governments in possessing an [[unwritten constitution]] (like the [[United Kingdom]]), and possessing separate, countervailing branches of government (like the [[United States]]), which provided a clear [[separation of powers]] in socio-political governance. While the United States and some other systems of government have [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|three separate branches of government]]—executive, legislative, and judicial—Islamic monarchies had two: the sultan and the ''ulama''.<ref name=feldman-fall-6>Feldman, Noah, ''Fall and Rise of the Islamic State'', Princeton University Press, 2008, p.6</ref>

According to the French political scientist and professor [[Olivier Roy (professor)|Olivier Roy]], this "''de facto'' separation between political power" of sultans and emirs and religious power of the caliph was "created and institutionalized ... as early as the end of the first century of [[Islamic calendar|the hegira]]." The sovereign's religious function was to defend the Muslim community against its enemies, institute the sharia, ensure the public good (''maslaha''). The state was instrument to enable Muslims to live as good Muslims and Muslims were to obey the [[sultan]] if he did so. The legitimacy of the ruler was "symbolized by the right to coin money and to have the Friday prayer (''[[Jumu'ah]] [[khutba]]'') said in his name."<ref>Roy, Olivier, ''The Failure of Political Islam'' by Olivier Roy, translated by Carol Volk, Harvard University Press, 1994, p.14-15</ref>

British lawyer and journalist [[Sadakat Kadri]] argues that a large "degree of deference" was shown to the caliphate by the ulama and this was at least at times "counterproductive". "Although jurists had identified conditions from mental incapacity to blindness that could disqualify a caliph, none had ever dared delineate the powers of the caliphate as an institution."  During the Abbasid caliphate:

<blockquote>When Caliph [[Al-Mutawakkil]] had been killed in 861, jurists had retroactively validated his murder with a [[fatwa]]. Eight years later, they had testified to the lawful abdication of a successor, after he had been dragged from a toilet, beaten unconscious, and thrown into a vault to die. By the middle of the tenth century, judges were solemnly confirming that the onset of blindness had disqualified a caliph, without mentioning that they had just been assembled to witness the gouging of his eyes.<ref name=kadri-120-1>{{cite book|last1=Kadri|first1=Sadakat|title=Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts of Ancient Arabia ...|date=2012|publisher=Macmillan|isbn=9780099523277|pages=120–1|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ztCRZOhJ10wC&pg=PT127}}</ref>
</blockquote>

According to [[Noah Feldman]], law professor at [[Harvard University]], the Muslim legal scholars and jurists lost their control over Islamic law due to the [[Codification (law)|codification]] of ''sharia'' by the [[Ottoman Empire]] in the early 19th century:<ref name=Feldman-why>{{Cite web|author=Noah Feldman|title=Why Shariah?|work=[[New York Times]]|date=March 16, 2008|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?ei=5070&em=&en=5c1b8de536ce606f&ex=1205812800&pagewanted=all|access-date=2008-10-05}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|How the scholars lost their exalted status as keepers of the law is a complex story, but it can be summed up in the adage that partial reforms are sometimes worse than none at all. In the early 19th century, the Ottoman empire responded to military setbacks with an internal reform movement. The most important reform was the attempt to codify Shariah. This Westernizing process, foreign to the Islamic legal tradition, sought to transform Shariah from a body of doctrines and principles to be discovered by the human efforts of the scholars into a set of rules that could be looked up in a book. [...] Once the law existed in codified form, however, the law itself was able to replace the scholars as the source of authority. Codification took from the scholars their all-important claim to have the final say over the content of the law and transferred that power to the state.}}