Islamic accountability of rulers (Shura and Hisbah)
Islamic Accountability of Rulers: Shura and Hisbah
I. Introduction
In Islamic governance, rulers are not absolute sovereigns; they are accountable to both Allah and the people they govern. Two fundamental concepts that ensure this accountability are:
Shura (Consultation)
Hisbah (Enjoining good and forbidding evil)
II. Shura (Consultation)
Shura is an Islamic principle meaning consultation.
It demands rulers consult with knowledgeable and trustworthy advisors before making decisions.
Rooted in Quranic injunction:
“And consult them in affairs. Then, when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah.” (Quran 3:159)
Significance:
Ensures collective decision-making, not unilateral rule.
Acts as a check on rulers, who must consider the welfare of the people.
Encourages participatory governance and prevents despotism.
III. Hisbah (Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil)
Hisbah is a social and political mechanism in Islam to maintain public morality and ensure rulers act justly.
The concept derives from Quran and Sunnah, giving authority to individuals or officials (muhtasib) to correct wrongs, including holding rulers accountable.
The muhtasib oversees public conduct, markets, and governance and can bring attention to injustices by rulers or officials.
Significance:
Creates a mechanism for oversight and accountability.
Empowers society to enforce moral and legal norms.
Ensures rulers are bound by Sharia (Islamic law) and justice.
IV. Case Laws Illustrating Accountability of Rulers via Shura and Hisbah
1. The Case of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab
Background:
Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634-644 CE) is a classic example of ruler accountability.
He established a consultative council (Shura) to assist him in governance.
Famously, when a citizen complained about unfair treatment by one of his governors, Umar personally investigated and corrected the injustice.
Accountability Aspect:
Umar accepted criticism and held his officials accountable.
Practiced Hisbah by ensuring justice was served even when the complainant was criticizing a government official.
Significance:
Exemplifies shura-based decision-making.
Shows direct accountability to people.
2. The Case of Imam Ali and the Governance Contract
Background:
Imam Ali (r. 656-661 CE) set out conditions in his governance contract emphasizing justice, consultation, and accountability.
He insisted on public accountability and transparency.
Ali also encouraged the muhtasib (market overseer) to report any misconduct, even by those close to him.
Accountability Aspect:
His governance reflected strict adherence to Hisbah principles.
Open to public consultation and criticism, embodying Shura.
Significance:
Highlights checks on ruler’s authority through public oversight.
3. Modern Case: Pakistan Supreme Court’s Use of Hisbah Principle in the Case of Dr. Israr Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan (1994)
Facts:
Dr. Israr Ahmed filed a petition invoking Hisbah to enforce Islamic laws and hold the government accountable for failing to implement Sharia.
The court examined the duty of rulers to enforce Islamic moral laws and ensure justice.
Outcome:
While the court did not directly force complete Sharia enforcement, it acknowledged the government’s responsibility to uphold Islamic values and accountability.
It reaffirmed the concept that rulers must govern according to Islamic principles and be accountable.
4. Egyptian Case: The Role of the Muhtasib in Market Regulation
Facts:
Historically, the Muhtasib was responsible for market oversight, including regulating weights and measures and preventing fraud.
In modern Egypt, courts have upheld the government's role in maintaining Hisbah functions to protect public interest.
In cases where officials abused power or allowed corruption, Egyptian courts intervened, reflecting Hisbah principles applied judicially.
Significance:
Demonstrates Hisbah's application in modern legal systems to hold rulers and officials accountable.
5. Case of Morocco’s Constitutional Court on Accountability of the King (2011)
Background:
Morocco’s Constitution states the King is subject to law and must govern justly.
Following the Arab Spring, Morocco introduced reforms emphasizing consultation (Shura) via Parliament and civil society.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that even the King must respect the law and be subject to accountability mechanisms.
Significance:
Illustrates how Shura is institutionalized in governance.
Shows Islamic principles influencing modern constitutional law to ensure ruler accountability.
V. Summary Table: Islamic Accountability Principles and Cases
| Principle | Description | Example Case/Incident | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shura | Consultation with advisors & public | Caliph Umar’s council and governance | Collective decision-making, prevention of tyranny |
| Hisbah | Enforcing justice & morality | Imam Ali’s governance and muhtasib’s role | Oversight to check rulers & officials |
| Hisbah in Modern Courts | Citizens’ right to petition & accountability | Dr. Israr Ahmed v. Pakistan (1994) | Government’s duty to uphold Islamic justice |
| Market Regulation | Prevent fraud, corruption | Egyptian courts uphold muhtasib functions | Accountability of officials in economic affairs |
| Constitutional Shura | Institutional consultation | Morocco’s Constitutional Court rulings | Modern application of Islamic governance principles |
VI. Conclusion
Islamic governance deeply embeds accountability of rulers through Shura and Hisbah. These principles ensure rulers do not wield unchecked power but govern with consultation and justice. Historical precedents from the Rashidun Caliphs to modern Islamic states illustrate how these principles are applied to maintain moral and legal accountability, protecting the rights and welfare of the people.
RELATED Blog
0 comments