The Dilemma of the Modern Division of the Civil State and the Inclusiveness of the Islamic Vision (2–3)

By Dr. Ismail Sati
Introduction: On the Concept of Political Legitimacy in Islam
After reviewing the historical background of the Western model in the first article, we now turn to analyse the Islamic vision of political legitimacy — highlighting how it combines moral reference with a fundamentally civil foundation, and how it differs radically from the Western theocratic model.
In this part, we examine the theoretical foundations of political legitimacy in Islam, shedding light on its civil mechanisms (al-bay‘ah and al-shura) and its ethical principles (accountability and justice), while refuting the common conflation between the Islamic model and the Western theocracy.
Islam: Civil Legitimacy with a Moral Reference
The European historical trajectory discussed earlier — in which legitimacy transitioned from the Church to the social contract — cannot be mechanically applied to societies with different cultural and spiritual foundations, among them those governed by Islamic legitimacy.
It is narrated that a Coptic man from Egypt once came to Al-Madinah to complain to Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab that the son of the governor of Egypt, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀs, had struck him with a whip during a horse race, saying to him: “I am the son of the noblemen.” ʿUmar summoned the governor and his son, handed the whip to the Copt, and said: “Strike the son of the noblemen.”
He then turned to ʿAmr and uttered his immortal words that have echoed through history:
“Since when have you enslaved people when their mothers bore them free?”
This is not merely a moral anecdote about justice — it is a vivid embodiment of the very essence of legitimacy in the Islamic worldview.
In this conception, authority derives neither from divine inheritance nor from a royal lineage, but from its adherence to justice, its subjection to accountability, and its acceptance by the governed.
This foundational difference explains why “religious legitimacy” in Islam diverges sharply from that of medieval Christendom under the dominance of the Church.
In Islam, no priesthood monopolises divine authority or grants rule “in the name of heaven.” There is no “divine right of kings.” Instead, Islam recognises bay‘ah (pledge of allegiance), shura (consultation), and responsibility before God and the people. The ruler possesses no absolute legitimacy — it is acquired through the choice of the ummah and sustained only so long as justice and public welfare are upheld.
When the Prophet ﷺ passed away and Abu Bakr was chosen as Caliph, he delivered a sermon that deserves to be taught in modern schools of governance. It articulated a concept of legitimacy not based on divine status or hereditary privilege, but on justice and public consent. He said:
“O people, I have been appointed over you though I am not the best among you. If I do right, support me; if I do wrong, correct me. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger; but if I disobey them, you owe me no obedience. Straighten me with your swords if you see me deviate.”
Thus, legitimacy in Islam bears a civil character in its source — it arises from people’s consent and their pledge — but it draws its ethical foundation from religion, being bound by justice, mercy, and equality.
Moreover, the Islamic model does not strictly separate political and military authority, since the Caliph combined both responsibilities within a unified framework of accountability and service.
This synthesis of popular legitimacy and moral authority is precisely what Europe’s Church-state dichotomy lacked. Hence, Europe’s revolt against ecclesiastical domination led to a purely secular legitimacy.
Al-Bay‘ah and Al-Shura: The Civil Mechanisms of Islamic Legitimacy
Opponents of the Islamic model often seek — deliberately or otherwise — to confine Islamic legitimacy within a narrow “theocratic” frame, ignoring the fact that the Islamic political system is, in essence, founded upon civil legitimacy structured through two core mechanisms: bay‘ah and shura.
Bay‘ah: A Political Contract, Not a Ritual Act
In Islamic tradition, bay‘ah represents a contractual relationship between ruler and ruled. The First and Second Pledges of al-ʿAqabah exemplify voluntary political covenants.
During the Rashidun era, bay‘ah evolved into a political institution ensuring the community’s participation in leadership selection.
It was never a ritualistic act of worship or priestly ceremony but rather a clear social and political contract defined by conditions and mutual obligations. It rests on consent: the ruler commits to uphold justice and public welfare, and the ruled pledge loyalty and obedience in what is right.
Should the ruler violate the terms of this covenant, the bay‘ah becomes void — a principle deeply rooted in Islamic political jurisprudence.
Shura: A Mechanism for Decision-Making, Not Mere Advice
Similarly, shura — whether binding or consultative — is not a mere expression of goodwill; it is an institutional mechanism for collective decision-making. It ensures participation, shared responsibility, and prevents autocracy.
Throughout Islamic history, shura manifested in diverse forms — from the councils of the Companions to later advisory structures — affirming its role as a governance tool, not merely a moral value.
Together, bay‘ah and shura form the civil framework of Islamic legitimacy, grounded in consent, participation, and accountability — principles that underpin modern civil systems, albeit in different form and terminology.
This demonstrates that Islam laid the groundwork for a political legitimacy independent of clericalism — one that constrains rulers, enforces accountability, and renders authority a collective trust, not a divine privilege.
Parameters of Legitimacy: Accountability and Justice
Political legitimacy in Islam is conditional, not absolute.
Imam al-Mawardi wrote in Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah:
“If the ruler becomes unjust or tyrannical, his authority is nullified, and it becomes obligatory for Muslims to depose him.”
These principles establish an early framework of accountability that precedes modern political theories.
Absence of Priesthood and Its Impact on Power
The Islamic system is distinguished by the absence of an institutional clergy mediating between God and humankind. This absence produced a unique distribution of authority: scholars (ulama) are the inheritors of the prophets, yet they hold no direct political power.
The Comprehensive Concept of Islamic Legitimacy
Islamic political thought defines legitimacy not merely by institutional form but by moral substance.
Legitimacy is derived from:
Justice: “Indeed, Allah commands justice and excellence” (An-Nahl 90);
“When you judge between people, judge with justice” (An-Nisa 58);
“Be steadfast in equity” (An-Nisa 135).
Public Welfare: The principle of promoting benefit and preventing harm (jalb al-masalih wa dar’ al-mafasid).
Popular Consent: The bay‘ah as a covenant of mutual satisfaction.
Moral Responsibility: “Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due” (An-Nisa 58).
Muslim jurists established criteria of legitimacy beyond formal structures:
Social justice.
Protection of public interests.
Commitment to shura.
Implementation of divine law.
Efficiency and excellence in governance.
Accountability is ensured through nasiha (advice), hisbah (public oversight), and ʿazl (removal of rulers who deviate from moral and legal principles).
The Western Confusion Between the Two Experiences
The conflation between the Christian and Islamic experiences stems from two factors:
A distorted epistemic lens, inherited from Orientalist-colonial discourse, portraying Islam as antithetical to modernity.
A unique European context, where the nation-state emerged from conflict with the Church — leading to the false assumption that every religion is inherently theocratic.
Hence, thinkers like Max Weber, Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, and Ernest Gellner misrepresented Islam as a theocratic system. They ignored the absence of clergy and the centrality of accountability in Islamic governance.
In reality, Islam institutionalised limited and accountable authority, unlike the absolute and sacralised power of the medieval Church.
When ʿUmar said to the Copt, “Strike the son of the noblemen,” he was not exercising divine right but judicial authority.
When the Prophet ﷺ forbade obedience to a ruler who disobeys God, he established a moral, not sacral, basis of legitimacy.
Conclusion
The Western confusion between the Christian and Islamic political models is not merely academic — it is ideological, aiming to strip Islamic governance of its intellectual legitimacy.
Yet, the truth remains: Islam founded its political legitimacy upon justice, choice, and accountability — principles that preceded and transcended Europe’s later “social contract.”
It grounded these in conscience before interest, and faith before power.
Islam thus presents a model of legitimacy rooted in moral constancy and civil authenticity, while the Western model rests on the social contract and secular sovereignty.
Far from being its opposite, Islamic legitimacy represents a refined embodiment of civility when rightly understood.
It does not demand that the ruler be “civilian” or “military,” but that he govern with justice, mercy, and accountability — the true foundations of legitimate authority.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=8448