| In
such a scheme, the role of the ruler, good, bad or indifferent, must
be strictly limited. Unlike pre- Islamic Egyptian kings, for
example, he cannot claim to be vice regent of God on earth
(incidentally in Islam all men are vice regents of God on earth in
that man has been made in the image of God); he cannot
supersede the Shariat though changes have been made in it by some
Muslim rulers in recent years; he can manipulate the ulema and make
them issue fatwas in his favour but that only establishes the point
that he is not a priest-king. And how can there be a theocracy
without a priest-king? Indeed, secular communist rulers
have been more like priest-kings than Muslim rulers.
Two other points need to be made in
this regard. First, the Prophet, who spoke in great details on a
great number of issues, had little to say on government as such; he
showed no interest in theorizing on politics. And there is a
traditional which speaks for itself, One of his companions is said
to have requested him that he be appointed governor of one of the
recently conquered territories. No, said the Prophet, if
you wish to rule, then you are unfit. According to another
tradition recorded by both Bukhari and Muslim, the Prophet said:"Do
not ask for rulership , for if you are given power as a result of
asking for it, you will be left to deal with it on your own, if you
are given it without asking, then you will be helped in exercising
it". It should not be necessary to add that hardly has any
Muslim ruler even lived up to the Prophet's prescription.
|
