The Power of Sovereignty

The Political and Ideological Philosophy of Sayyid Qutb

Sayed Khatab

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134193097
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Power of Sovereignty explores the religio-political and philosophical concepts of Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential political thinkers for contemporary Islamists and who has greatly influenced the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Executed by the Egyptian state in 1966, his books continue to be read and his theory of jahiliyya 'ignorance' is still of prime importance for radical Islamic groups.

Providing a detailed perspective of Sayyid Qutb's writings, this book examines:

• 
  
  

• the relation between the specifics of the concept of hakimiyyah and that of jahiliyyah

• 
  
  

• the force and intent of these two concepts

• 
  
  

• how Qutb employs their specifics to critically assess the political establishments like nationalism and capitalism

• 
  
  

• the influence of the two concepts on Egypt's radical Islamic movements, where many of al'Qa'ida's lieutenants, officers, ideologues and conspirators were fomented

Shedding light on Islamic radicalism and its intellectual origins The Power of Sovereignty presents new analysis on the intellectual legacy of one of the most important thinkers of modern Islamic revival.

Part I
Religio-political discourse

1 Sovereignty (al-Hakimiyyah)

The ultimate goal of Sayyid Qutb is to establish an Islamic state. In his analysis, Qutb uses a number of comprehensive ideas to foster his ideological discourse. The first three chapters (Part I) of this book examine a number of religio-political concepts (Sovereignty, Servitude, and Universality of Islam) that Qutb uses, conceptually and intellectually, to promote his ideological goal. He also uses this trio as religio-political foundations of his confrontational theory of Jahiliyyah, which divides the world into two large camps of potential clash. To Qutb, jahiliyyah is a condition of any place or society where Allah is not held to be the ultimate sovereign. He says that Islam and Jahiliyyah are the real opposite and that the clash in the future will be between them and not between civilizations as such.¹ Consequently, the theory of jahiliyyah encompasses the ‘clash of civilizations’. Therefore, these concepts (Sovereignty, Servitude and Universality of Islam) are fundamental in Qutb’s political and ideological discourse and have in common their timelessness.

Focusing on Sovereignty (hakimiyyah), the present chapter examines the lexical and cultural origins of hakimiyyah, the meaning of the Qur’anic term hukm (rule) and its socio-political implication; the influence of hakimiyyah on governance in Islam; the difference between the concept of hakimiyyah and that of the modern political term ‘sovereignty’; and the difference between the source of authority in Islamic and non-Islamic states. Examination will take into account the confrontational theory of Jahiliyyah and the question of whether Islam is only a religion or a religion and state in one. It will elucidate that the government in Islam is a limited and constitutional government and that the Islamic State is not theocratic or autocratic or anything but ‘Islamic’.

The place of Islam in the polity

The role of Islam in the state has become one of the most contentious issues in the Muslim countries. It holds a central position in every public debate over constitution, law and civil rights and the very essence of cultural identity as well. In Qutb’s view, Islam, by its very nature, is a ‘political religion’.² The unity between religion and politics is a great principle in Islam. To him, the link between religion and politics is a very important and critical matter. Qutb drew heavily from the Qur’an to support his view. For example, in his In the Shade of the Qur’an (1952–1959),³ Qutb states that

this group of verses [5: 41–50] deals with the most important and serious (akhtar) issue (qadiyya) in Islamic creed. This is because this group of verses in its positive terms sharply defines governance in Islam. This matter concerns government, the Islamic law (shari‘ah) and legitimization.⁴

In short, Qutb means that Islam is a religion and State in one. To him, the State is not a vague concept but clearly defined and characterized by Sovereignty (hakimiyyah).

In the Islamic State, God is the supreme legislator and the ultimate source of governmental and legal authority. Government in Islam is thus specifically designed to implement Islamic law, that is, to administer justice in accordance with its decrees. Enforcing the law and facilitating its application requires Islam to function as a religion and state. Although there is no place in the Islamic system for arbitrary rule by a single individual or group, there is always room for consultation (shurah) within the boundary of law.⁵

Arguments that oppose this view tend to be of two types: The first claims that hakimiyyah is not a Qur’anic term but derived from the Arabic verb ‘to judge’.⁶ The second considers that the term hukm has no political connotation. This view asserts that ‘the word hakam, as a noun, is still used in Arabic for referee’.⁷ These views seek to separate the term hakimiyyah (sovereignty) from the Qur’anic terms hukm (to rule and to judge). They thus exclude the Qur’anic word group of hukm from any political connotation. Such arguments view Islam as simply a religion without the right to govern and order human life or to organize the daily affairs of the Muslims. Lexical origins of the term hukm, which constitute one aspect of this controversy, are detailed in the following pages. What should be noted here is that much of the support for these arguments, in modern times, derives from the thinking of ‘Ali ‘Abd al-ziq’s Islam and the Foundations of Government, which was published in Egypt in 1925.⁸ This book, as asserted by Shepard, emphasizes that ‘religion and government should be separate in Islam’.⁹ According to Shepard, this book, ‘to this day . . . is one of the major points of reference in the debate’.¹⁰ The other point of reference is Preachers, not Judges a book attributed to Hasan al-Hudaybi in 1969.¹¹ These two books have continued to be seen as a major point of reference as to whether Religion and State should be separate in Islam.

However, this major point of reference has been challenged by ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq himself and by ‘Abd al-Aziz Fahmi, the Minister of Justice in 1925.¹² In addition, the newly released information also doubted the authenticity of the book Preachers, not Judges (Du‘ah la Qudah) which is commonly attributed to al-Hudaybi the judge at the Supreme Court in the 1940s and the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood from 1949 until his death in 1973.

‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq’s text was published in 1925, a year after the collapse of Islamic Caliphate in Turkey in 1924. According to the Egyptian Muhammad ‘Umarah,¹³ it was written in opposition to King Fu’ad’s claim to the Caliphate.¹⁴ Consequently, under the instruction of King Fu’ad, the Supreme Council of al-Azhar ‘banned the text and excluded ‘Ali from the Council of the ‘Ulama on 12 August 1925’.¹⁵ These political circumstances are familiar ground in the literature and there is no need for repetition.¹⁶ The question here is that does ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq suggest, in his book, that Islam is only a religion, not a religion and State?

'Abd al-Raziq’s book, from its title al-Islam wa Usul al-Hum (Islam and the Foundations of Government) indicates its content. The title explicitly suggested the link between religion and government in Islam. The title expresses that there is rule or ‘government’ in Islam and that the government has ‘foundations’. In other words, Islam is Religion and State in one.

'Abd al-Raziq (1888–1966) never confined Islam to ritual duties or ‘claimed that ‘Islam is only spiritual’ as claimed by Kepel (1985),¹⁷ Haddad (1983),¹⁸ and Abukhalil (1994),¹⁹ or Mortimer (1982).²⁰ On the contrary, ‘Abd al-Raziq states that

I do not believe that the Islamic law (shari‘iah) is merely spiritual and I have not said this in the book or in [writings] other than the book. I have not said anything similar to this opinion or closer to it . . .²¹

Islam is a legislative religion. The application of Islamic law is obligatory on Muslims. This is the command of Allah to them all . . . The Muslims must establish a government to carry on this burden. Allah does not impose upon Muslims a specific type or form of government, but they are free to choose what is better for the welfare of their society at any time.²²

In response to his critics, ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq replied,

They say that in my book I have suggested that Islam is only spiritual and has nothing to do with the affairs of life . . . Some people still believe that I have said that religion [Islam] is only spiritual and has nothing to do with material [things] or the affairs of life. They also think that this is the prime aim of this book. This view in fact has no trace in my book and it never was my opinion. What I do believe is that Islam is a legislative religion (din tashri‘i), and its law impacts on most spheres of life . . . They also say that I have proclaimed that the Caliphate is not and never was a valid Islamic system at any time. And [they say that] I have changed my mind in the later report²³ to suggest that if the Muslims agreed that their government should be a Caliphate and viewed the Caliphate as the foremost system for their common welfare, then the Caliphate was a lawful Islamic government and the people should be loyal to whatever in it was not in conflict with religion. My view in the book and what I believe is that the application of Islamic law for the welfare of the people depends on the Caliphate which means government (hukumah) of any form and of any type, limited or unlimited, autocratic or republican, tyrannical or constitutional, consultative or democratic, socialistic or Bolshevik. Religion [Islam] does not impose upon Muslims a certain type or form of those governments, but allows us to choose the best form that appeared to have the best foundation of government.²⁴

Echoes of these words, are the words of ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Fahmi the Minister of Justice in 1925. About ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq’s matter, Fahmi says,

As for the second matter which increased my abhorrence of the Ministry, its account is as follows. I know Hasan ‘Abd al-Raziq Basha and his older children; Hasan, Husayn, Mahmud, and Mustafa,²⁵ as I met them on my frequent visits to their father’s home which was usually open for his friends. I was not so well acquainted, however, with his younger sons ‘Ali and Isma‘il, who were often occupied with their studies. When I was the Minister of Justice, in 1925, I received information about the allegations of al-Azhar against ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Raziq; the son of Hasan ‘Abd al-Raziq Basha. At that time, ‘Ali was a Judge at the Juridical Courts, but I had not seen him before. Al-Azhar requested that ‘Ali be divested of his degree, which he earned at al-Azhar, on the pretext that he violated the image of the Degree. He wrote a book titled ‘al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm’ [Islam and the Foundations of Government] and suggested that there is no caliphate in Islam; and that the present leaders of Muslims are kings, not caliphs. I acquired the book, I have read it once, twice, and I have not found a slighte...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Religio-Political Discourse
• Part II: Philosophical Discourse
• Part III: Face to Face
• Part IV: Influences and Responses
• Glossary
• Notes
• Bibliography