Authority of Scholars Above the Power of Rulers
I do not believe that any nation or civilization other than the Islamic Ummah and civilization has elevated the authority of scholars above that of rulers. The secret behind this unique and seemingly strange phenomenon lies in the nature of the Islamic system of governance and the structure of its state authorities. The Islamic state is a state governed by law.
While Western
democracies also claim to be states of law, the difference is that in
democratic systems, the law is created by the state itself. Thus, practically
speaking, the state holds power above the law. It can, through the legislative
authority, which is part of the ruling party that also controls the executive
authority, amend or even manipulate the law whenever it wishes.
For example, in 2005,
the French Parliament passed a resolution declaring that the actions of French
colonialism and the French army in Algeria were a source of pride. Similarly,
the American Congress made the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq
a law to be respected and enforced, thereby turning killing and torture into
protected legal acts.
But this is not the
case in the Islamic system, which places the principles of divine Sharia above
the executive authority and considers them a governing framework for the
legislative authority. In this system, the role of expert legislation and
codification is played by scholars recognized by the Muslim Ummah for their
expertise in Islamic jurisprudence. They serve as a guiding authority over the
rest of the governing bodies. For this reason, and because of this truth, our
Ummah and civilization recognized for these scholars a moral, not clerical, authority
that exceeded that of rulers.
In our Islamic history,
that we must understand and follow, there are shining examples of such scholars
whom the Ummah seated on the throne of scholarly leadership. Among these
examples is Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam, who became known in Islamic history as the
“Sultan of Scholars.” How did the authority of this “Sultan of Scholars” rise
above that of the rulers?
Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam
engaged in teaching, preaching, judging, and issuing fatwas. He practiced all
this in the Levant. When he clashed with the Emir of Damascus, who was allied
with the Crusaders and hostile to the Sultan of Egypt, and who had allowed the
Crusaders to buy weapons from the markets of Damascus, Al-Izz ascended the
pulpit of the Umayyad Mosque, denounced the Emir of Damascus, and instead of
supplicating for him—as was customary—he prayed against him. The masses in the
mosque echoed behind him, saying “Ameen... Ameen!” After this incident, Al-Izz
emigrated to Egypt.
In Cairo, Al-Izz ibn
Abd al-Salam feared no one when speaking the truth. He condemned Sultan
Al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub for his unjust methods of governance, heavy taxation
on the people, and the legalization of alcohol and intoxicants. He even
confronted the Sultan during Eid in the presence of emirs who were kissing the
ground before the Sultan. Al-Izz, aiming to break this arrogance and tyranny,
addressed the Sultan by his bare name and said to him: “O Ayyub! What will you
say to Allah if He asks: ‘I gave you the kingdom of Egypt, and yet you sell
alcohol?’” The Sultan replied, “Did that really happen?” Al-Izz responded,
“Yes, at such-and-such tavern, alcohol and other vices are sold, and you bask
in the blessings of this kingdom!” When the Sultan justified it by saying this
had been going on since the days of his father, Al-Izz retorted: “Are you among
those who say, ‘Indeed, we found our forefathers upon a religion’?!”
When the Mamluks took
over power after the Ayyubids, and Al-Izz witnessed their arrogance, tyranny,
and oppression, he decided to confront them with an unprecedented fatwa in the
history of jurisprudence. These Mamluks had been bought as slaves by the state in
their childhood and raised and trained in warfare. Therefore, in Islamic Sharia,
they were still legally considered slaves despite the high positions they held.
Al-Izz issued a fatwa declaring that these oppressive rulers and emirs should
be sold in the slave market, and that the proceeds should be deposited into the
treasury of the Muslims.
This was a major
catastrophe for the Mamluks who possessed armies, weapons, wealth, and high
positions. The Sultan's deputy exclaimed: “How dare this sheikh put us up for
sale? We are kings of the earth! By Allah, I shall strike him down with this
sword of mine!” The Mamluks, fully armed and led by the Sultan’s deputy,
marched to surround the house of this unarmed sheikh. Yet he emerged with the
majesty and power of truth. As soon as he came face to face with the Sultan’s
deputy, the latter's hand stiffened, his sword dropped, and his limbs trembled.
He wept and asked the sheikh for forgiveness and for his supplication. But the
sheikh insisted on implementing his fatwa. He publicly called out the names of
these emirs one by one in the slave market, sold them at high prices, collected
the money, and spent it on public welfare and in the interests of the Muslim
community.
People were amazed by
this rare courage—courage armed with nothing but truth. So much so that the
sheikh's son asked him, “Father, how did you face this terrifying situation,
while you were unarmed and facing a fully armed army?” He replied, “By Allah, my
son, I envisioned the greatness of Allah, so I saw the prince as nothing more
than a mouse!”
When the Tatars, allied
with the Crusaders, invaded and destroyed Baghdad and the eastern Islamic
lands, threatening the very civilizational existence of the Muslim Ummah,
Hulagu sent a brutal ultimatum to Sultan Qutuz of Egypt. The Sultan gathered
the scholars, emirs, and dignitaries and requested a fatwa from the scholars on
whether it was permissible to impose financial burdens on the people to support
the war.
Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam
aligned himself with justice in distributing the burdens of battle. Speaking on
behalf of the scholars, he declared that when an enemy attacks Muslim lands, it
is obligatory for everyone to fight them. It is permissible for rulers to
collect from the people what is needed for jihad, but only on the condition
that nothing remains in the public treasury, and only after the emirs have sold
their gold, luxury items, and treasures, and only the essential weapons and
warhorses are left with the soldiers. Only when the emirs and the general
public are financially equal should the government request money from the
common people.
Al-Izz addressed Sultan
Qutuz directly and said: “If you bring forth what you and your women possess,
and the emirs bring forth their illicit jewelry, and you convert it to cash and
distribute it to the army, and still that does not meet the army’s needs, then
and only then may you ask for contributions. But before that—no! Any soldier
who risks neither his life nor his wealth is no soldier at all!”
And so, the war budget
was distributed justly among the population—only after the state had
confiscated the wealth, treasures, and valuables held by the emirs. As the
historian Ibn Iyas recounts: the average citizen paid a dinar; landowners,
property holders, and irrigators paid a month’s worth of revenue; the wealthy
paid their annual zakat in advance; and the super-rich had a third of their
wealth taken by the state.
Such was the “Sultan of
Scholars,” Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam, sovereign in truth and justice, rooted in
piety and humility before the truth. He is a model and example to follow—the
Sultan of Scholars whose authority surpassed that of rulers!
-------------------------------------------------------------
