The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The shura or the adoption of an opinion can be undertaken by the Khalifah, ameer, or anyone who has authority whether he is a chief, leader or official, as they are all ameers. Or, it can take place between spouses due to His  saying:

As for putting forth an opinion to a person in authority, whether he was a judge, leader etc, this is clearly an issue performed by way of giving advice (nasiha). It is a legitimate matter that is presented to the leaders of the Muslims and the masses. As for the referring of a person in authority to adopt an opinion of the people, whether he was a judge, ameer, or president, this is an object of ambiguity especially after concepts of democracy have spread and have almost corrupted the mentality of many Muslims. The seeking of an opinion is what is termed in Islam as: ‘Shura’ and ‘tashawur’. Since it is permitted to listen to an opinion expressed by Muslims and non-Muslims because the Messenger  accepted the opinion that was included in the hilf al-fudul (fudul confederacy), where he said:

Even though it was an opinion of the Mushrikin yet seeking of an opinion cannot be for anyone except for the Muslims that is, shura is not a right of anyone except the Muslims because Allah  addressed the Messenger  saying:

i.e, the Muslims. And He  says:

i.e, the Muslims. This is because the first ayah says:

This consultation by the Messenger  cannot be for anyone except the Muslims. The second ayah says:

This cannot be a description of anyone other than the Muslims. Therefore shura is specific to Muslims with each other. Practising shura amongst Muslims is a well-known matter. It has been mentioned in the noble Qur’ān and sacred hadīth and in the sayings of the Muslims. It has been narrated that Abu Hurairah  said:

It has been narrated also that al-Hasan  said:

So seeking of an opinion is tashawur or shura which is proven in the text of the Qur’ān and the hadīth. However what many people do not know is; in what issues can there be a shura or tashawur ? i.e, in which issue is an opinion adopted ? Then, what is the rule on this opinion. Should it be adopted according to the opinion of the majority irrespective of right or wrong? Or, is he obliged to adopt the correct opinion irrespective of whether it is the opinion of the majority or minority or a single person?

In order to comprehend the answer, it is inevitable that we understand the reality of the opinion as it is and what it is and understand the detailed Sharī’ah evidences mentioned about seeking of opinions and apply these evidences on the reality of an opinion from a legislative perspective.

As for the reality of opinions existent in the world they do not number more than four types only. Any opinion in the world is either one of these opinions or it has branched out from or classified under one of them. The four types of opinions are:

First: Either the hukm is a Sharī’ah rule that is, legislative opinion.

Second: Being the definition of a certain issue. Either a Sharī’ah definition such as the definition of what a hukm shar’i is or the definition of a reality, such as the definition of the ‘mind’, ‘society’ and other such things.

Third: It is an opinion which indicates a thought in a subject or it indicates a thought in a technical matter which is understood by specialists & experts.

Fourth: An opinion which indicates an action that needs to be undertaken.

These are the opinions existent in the world and this is their reality. So is shura (seeking of an opinion) carried out in all of these opinions or only in some of them? Is the opinion of the majority preferred irrespective of being right or wrong? Or is the opinion preferred in terms of its correctness without taking notice of the majority? In order to arrive at an answer, we must examine the evidences mentioned in the Qur’ān and hadīth first. And then apply these evidences on these opinions.

As regards shura the text of the Qur’ān indicates that shura applies to all types of opinions because the verse says:

And he  says:

The speech here is general. So the word ‘matter’ means the affairs of the Muslims, which is a general designation for all affairs. And in the word ‘al-amr’ (the matter), the definite article (alif lam) is generic i.e, to the category of affairs. The general thing remains general as long as there is no evidence to specify it. And here there is no evidence to specify shura to anything. Therefore, it remains of general designation for all affairs.

With regards to the obligation of following an opinion which is sought by the Shura, that is, whether the majority opinion is preferred irrespective of right or wrong or the opinion is preferred in terms of its correctness without taking notice of the majority being given any consideration, certainly, there are texts which indicate that the opinion of the majority should be adopted and complied with. And there are texts which indicate that the opinion of the majority should not be adopted, rather it gives the person in authority the right to execute what he has decided irrespective of the majority position. The Messenger PBUH said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar:

And he  complied with the opinion of the majority in Uhud. Allah  says to the Messenger 

In order to arrive at an understanding of when it is binding to adopt the opinion of the majority and when it is not binding we must examine the evidences which are mentioned in the Qur’ān and hadīth first, and then apply these evidences on the existing opinions in the world.

As for the evidences mentioned in the Qur’ān, there are two ayats. The first is His  saying:

It is an order from Allah  to His Messenger  to refer to the Muslims to obtain their opinion. However, Allah  gave him  the right to choose the opinion. So He  said in completion of the same verse:

i.e, after you have decided on a matter after consultation (shura), then put your trust in Allah  in carrying out your matter in the most sensible and appropriate manner. And He  said: “When you (singular) took a decision” (‘azamta) and not when “you (plural) took a decision” (‘azamtum). As for the second verse, His  saying:

heir own but consult each other about it. It encourages the practise of consultation (shura). Also the saying is ambivalent (mujmal), therefore, we need to refer to the Sunnah to see if there is anything there in terms of the sayings and actions of the Messenger  which will elucidate the ambivalent meaning (mujmal).

By referring to the sayings and actions of the Messenger  we find that he  said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar:

He  obliged himself not to go against what they have agreed upon, So here the Messenger  demonstrated that the opinion of the majority should not be opposed when they are two persons and he is one.

We also find that the Messenger  on the day of the battle of Uhud brought together the people of opinion from those amongst the Muslims and those who pretended to be Muslims and then they consulted each other. The Prophet  took the opinion that they should take refuge in Madina and force the Quraysh to stay outside. The head of the Munafiqin (hypocrites) ‘Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul was of this opinion. And this was the opinion of the senior companions. The opinion of the zealous youth who had not witnessed Badr was to go out to confront the enemy. The majority then appeared to be on the side of the youth. So the Messenger of Allah  yielded to their opinion and followed the opinion of the majority. So this incident indicates that he  gave in to the opinion of the majority and acted according to their opinion and he left his own opinion and that of the senior companions because they were the minority. So when the people began to regret and said: “We have forced the Messenger of Allah  to follow our opinion and we do not have that right.” They went to him  and said:

The Prophet  refused their request to go back to his opinion and that of the senior companions and he continued to insist on compliance with the opinion of the majority.

However, we see him  also in Badr where he complied with the correct opinion and he was satisfied with a single opinion when he found the opinion to be true. When the Messenger of Allah  and the Muslims with him came down at the nearest spring of Badr, al-Habbab ibn al Munzir did not like that place. He said to the Prophet :

In this hadīth the Prophet  left his opinion and he did not refer to the opinion of the majority but followed the correct opinion. He was content to adopt it from one person about a subject the Messenger  himself said was: “a matter of opinion, war and strategy.” Then we find the Messenger  in the expedition (ghazwa) of Hudaybiya that he stuck to his opinion single handily and he rejected the opinion of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Furthermore, he rejected the opinion of the Muslims and forced them to comply with his opinion despite their anger and grievances. He told them:

From these four ahadīth we find that the Messenger  held on to his opinion solely and rejected all other opinions, We also find him referring to the correct opinion and adopting the opinion of a single person alone whilst leaving his own opinion and not referring to the opinion of the people at all. We also find him complying with the majority opinion and making a statement which indicates that the opinion of the majority should be referred to and not opposed. If we scrutinise these ahadīth and the context in which they came we find that the Prophet  referred to the Sharī’ah evidence, that is, the wahy (revelation) in Hudaybiya and that he  referred to the correct opinion in the battle of Badr but referred to the majority in Uhud, and we also find him not objecting to the opinions of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. The Prophet’s  action and sayings can be summed up in three situations: First, referring to the strength of the evidence as perceived by the one who deduces from it and not how the people perceive it. Second, referring to what is the correct irrespective of the opinion of the majority and not even giving it any consideration at all. Third, referring to the majority opinion regardless of whether it was right or not, infact neglecting the aspect of rightness completely.

When we apply these three rules which have been deduced from the action and saying of the Prophet  on the reality of the existing opinions in the world we find the following:

Firstly- The Sharī’ah rule is outweighed only on the basis of the strength of the evidence. This is because the Messenger  only preferred what was sent down by revelation and absolutely rejected everything else. He  said:

The Sharī’ah evidence is the Qur’ān and Sunnah only and whatever the Qur’ān and Sunnah indicate as an evidence because it is the matter upon which the order or prohibition of Allah  applies. The strength of the evidence is not what the people perceive or what they define and understand it to be. Rather, the strength of the evidence is only according to what the one who educes (mustadill) it , even if this sense of deduction was his own understanding and the definition was his own, as long as he relied on the semblance of an evidence (shubhat dalīl). This is because the quwwa addalīl (strength of the evidence) differs among people due to their disparate perceptions of the Sharī’ah evidence itself and due to the manner in which they understand the Arabic language and the Sharī’ah. The strength of the evidence does not mean the strength (authenticity) of the hadīth only. Rather, the strength of the evidence, whether it be the Quran or the Sunnah, is in terms of the meaning (diraya), narration (riwaya), understanding (fahm) and consideration (i’tibar) and there is no difference among the Muslims about this.

Secondly - The opinion which indicates a thought about a subject, is outweighed from the angle of what is right , for eg, the issue of revival. Will it be realised by an intellectual elevation or through an economic one? Or, is the international situation favourable to a particular state or another? Is the internal and international situation suitable for the undertaking of political actions or military actions in addition to the political action or are they not suitable. In all of these things what is referred to is the correct opinion. Because, whatever category they may be, they fall under the saying of the Messenger :

The correct opinion is referred to just as the Prophet  referred to the opinion of al-Habbab ibn al-Munzir. Al-Habbab was familiar with that place, so the Prophet  referred to his experience. Therefore, in the technical opinion reference is made to the correct opinion.

Thirdly – In case of the opinion which leads to undertaking an action, the opinion of the majority is preferred. Because he  complied with the majority opinion in Uhud and he went outside of Madina even though he saw this opinion as mistaken. Likewise, the senior companions took a contrary view because they held the Prophet’s view that they should remain in Madinah. Despite this the Prophet  acted according to this opinion which was to go outside Madinah because the majority were of this opinion. So this action of the Messenger of Allah  clarifies the meaning of his statement to Abu Bakr  and ‘Umar :

This is regarding the opinion over the same category as in the case Uhud that is, an opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. So in any opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action, the majority is preferred such as in the election of a leader, or the removal of a governor (wali) or to decide on a project etc. It is incumbent that the majority opinion be adopted and that is binding irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.

After the application of the evidences on the reality of opinions in the world it becomes clear that the binding opinion i.e, in which the majority is preferred, is of the same category as in the case of Uhud. It falls under the ‘al-mashura’ mentioned in his  saying: “If both of you agree on a mashura...” It is the opinion which leads to the undertaking of an action. Anything besides that is not binding and it is not obligatory to act upon based on the view of the majority. Thus, the binding opinion that is, in which the majority opinion is preferred, is restricted to one type of the actions that exist in the world which is the opinion that discusses the action which needs to be performed. Due to this application it also becomes clear that for the Sharī’ah rule and the opinion which leads to a thought or a technical matter no attention is given to the majority opinion in both cases. For the Sharī’ah rule, only the strength of the evidence is taken into account. And in the opinion which leads to a thought or technical matter i.e, which is of the type of opinion, war or strategy, only the correct opinion is given attention and nothing else.

Therefore, the definition is an opinion which is not binding i.e; the majority opinion is not followed since in no way does it fall under ‘mashura’, because the incident of Uhud does not apply to it. However, the question of definition also belongs to the opinion which indicates a thought because the study of the hukm shar’i in order to define it and the study of the mind to define it is the study of an actual thing in order to arrive at the understanding of its reality i.e, the understanding of its true nature. Whenever it is in agreement with the reality then that is what is preferred. Therefore, in defining a thing what is preferred is the correct opinion. In this the Sharī’ah rule is not studied and nor is any importance attached to the opinion of the majority. There is no difference between the Sharī’ah definition and the definition of any other thing. So when the definition is inclusive (jami’) of all components of the object being defined without exception or exclusion of any components of the definition and it restricts the inclusion of any component which does not come under the meaning of the definition then this definition is preferred over other definitions, in other words the correct opinion is preferred because it agrees with the reality of the object being defined, and gives the true description of this reality.

This is the hukm of shura in Islam and it is clear from the texts of the Qur’ān and hadīth and it has been elaborately described in the actions of the Messenger of Allah . However, for the purpose of gaining a precise understanding someone may become confused when discussing the reality of opinions about the difference between an opinion through which a thought is reached and the opinion through which one arrives at an action. The question of the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud in applying the evidences on the opinions prevalent in the world may also become confused. It might be said when discussing the reality of opinions that there is no difference between the opinion which leads to an action and the opinion which leads to a thought, in the end all of them revert back to an action. So from where does this difference arise? The answer to this question is that there is a subtle difference between them. With respect to the opinion which leads to a thought, only the subject matter is discussed without considering the action. So the area of discussion is the subject and not the action. What is intended from the discussion is to arrive at a thought over a subject which is studied without considering the action irrespective of whatever this thought may entail in terms of actions. For example, the Muslims going forth in the apostasy (ridda) wars was discussed by Abu Bakr as being in the sphere that a faction under his rule had rebelled against the implementation of the laws of the Sharī’ah. ‘Umar discussed it in the sphere that it constitutes fighting a faction which is strong and is challenging the state and the state may not be able to fight them. Thus, Abu Bakr said: “By Allah! If they withhold from me the cord of a camel which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah  I will fight them!” When the issue became clear to him ‘Umar had no choice but to retract from his previous opinion and follow the correct opinion, which was the opinion of Abu Bakr because in reality the issue was that a faction under the Islamic rule had rebelled. The issue was not that a large faction was challenging the state. The real discussion is not about going out to war or not going out as was the case in Uhud rather it is about whether the bedouin’s refusal to pay Zakah after the death of the Messenger  and their challenge to state constitutes rebellion against the Sharī’ah rule or a challenge to the state by a large faction. This is the actual discussion. Therefore, it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to a thought, for which reference is only made to the correct opinion. The correct opinion is that a faction under the rule of the Islamic state had rebelled against the implementation of the Sharī’ah rules. For example, Mu’awiyya’s request for the arbitration (tahkeem) of the Qur’ān between him and sayyidina ‘Ali by raising aloft the mushafs, was that a true arbitration of the Qur’ān or was it a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali ? ‘Ali  saw it as a ploy and many people with him viewed it as an arbitration of the Qur’ān. So, this subject should be studied in order to arrive at the true significance of raising the mushafs (scripts) which constitutes an opinion that leads to a thought, So the correct opinion is referred to which is that it was a ploy against sayyidina ‘Ali. For example, does the increase in the number of rulers weaken a state or strengthen it? In other words, as the number of rulers decreases, does the state become stronger or whenever their numbers decreases does the state become weaker and whenever their number increases does the state become stronger? In other words, does the cabinet in the democratic system become stronger whenever its members decrease and weaken whenever its members increase or is it the opposite? Does the state in the Islamic system become stronger whenever the number of the Khalifah’s assistants (mu’awwinin) decrease and weaken whenever their numbers increase, or is it the opposite? This issue is studied in order to arrive at the true reality. So it is an opinion which leads to a thought and in this subject the correct opinion is accredited which is that whenever the number of rulers increases the state becomes weaker and whenever their number decreases the state becomes stronger.

These are three examples of the opinion which leads to a thought. It is clear from these that the area of discussion is the subject and not the action even though the discussion in the subject would ensure actions yet the discussion is not focussed on the action but on a thought which upon becoming clear entails the undertaking or non-undertaking of an action or undertaking an action in a manner which is necessitated by the thought which has been discussed. So the discussion is for the purpose of arriving at an opinion in a subject i.e, to a thought. Once a thought is reached a decision will be made on the subject of the action in light of the thought arrived at after the study. The opinion which is being studied will not lead directly to an action rather it will only lead to a thought. The thought which is reached may entail the undertaking of an action or it may not. Consequently, it is an opinion which leads to a thought. As for the opinion which leads to an action, the undertaking of an action is discussed considering the subject upon which this action depends, so the area of discussion is the undertaking of an action and not the subject. The purpose of discussion is to determine whether or not to undertake an action or to undertake an action in a specific manner, the purpose is not to discuss a subject, For example when it is intended to elect a Khalifah and give Bay’a to him the subject of Khilafah is not discussed, Whether it is obligatory (fard) or preferred (mandub) and nor is the discussion; should we elect a president (of a republic) or a Khalifah? What should be discussed is: should so-and-so be elected and given Bay’a or should a different person be elected and given Bay’a? When the state’s action of taking a loan is discussed, the discussion should not be on the issue of whether or not it is allowed to take the loan rather what should be discussed is: whether the loan is to be taken or not ?. And when the building of a new road is discussed, the discussions should not be whether or not it is allowed to open this road due to the presence of another road taking its place but what is discussed is whether the road should be opened or not, the action itself is discussed in terms of whether or not to undertake it. The subject which is entailed by this action is not discussed. The discussion of a subject is an opinion which leads to a thought but the subject is not the area of discussion rather the subject under the area of discussion is whether to undertake an action. Then it will be considered a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. So the opinion will be put forward in order to undertake an action. For example, when Abu Bakr consulted the Muslims with regards to who will be Khalifah after him, it was a discussion about the election of a Khalifah i.e, should so-and-so or so-and-so person be elected. Definitely, the discussion was not about the issue of Khilafah. It was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example when the agreement of arbitration between Mu’awiyya and sayyidina ‘Ali was finalised, a discussion took place about selecting a mediator on the side of ‘Ali . ‘Ali  chose ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas but most of the people with him chose Abu Musa al-Ash’ari. This discussion was about who will be the mediator and not about the issue of accepting arbitration. So it was a discussion about an opinion which leads to an action. For example, if the Muslim populace take the view that they should establish heavy industry to manufacture all types of machinery and equipment in order to fulfil the elements necessary for the state to carry the Message (of Islam) but their rulers take the view that they should establish dams and encourage agriculture in order to improve the livelihood of the farmer, this discussion is about whether to pursue heavy industry or to undertake the construction of dams. The discussion should not be whether the state should carry the Message (of Islam) or not. So the discussion is about an opinion which leads to an action.

These are three examples of the opinion which leads to an action, and it is clear that the area of discussion is the action and not the subject. These actions even if they depend on certain issues, their discussion however is not focused on these issues rather on the undertaking of the action Therefore, the discussion is about the action and not about the opinion.

From this discussion and the above examples, it is clear that there is a difference between the opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action even though this subtle difference requires reflection and scrutiny. All this is in relation to the confusion that can occur with respect to the difference between an opinion which leads to a thought and the opinion which leads to an action. As for the confusion that may occur with regards to the difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud; it might be claimed that there is no difference between the incident of Badr and the incident of Uhud. Why should the incident of Badr be considered as an opinion which leads to a thought and the incident of Uhud be considered as an opinion which leads to an action when both involve going into battle and there is no difference between them? The answer to this is that there is a clear distinction between the two incidents since the reality of the incident of Badr is different to that of Uhud. The issue in Uhud was: Should they go out or remain in Madina? It was to do with zeal and cautiousness, the discussion was not about a (strategic) position in war. This is why we find the Prophet , when he came to organise the army in a strategic position on the mountain of Uhud, he assumed the task of organising them himself. He made the marksmen wait in the rear and ordered them not to attack (the complete story is available in AlBukhari), for this action he did not refer to the opinion of the people. As for the reality of Badr the issue was purely the question of arranging the army in a strategic position. So for this action the Messenger of Allah  referred to the correct opinion. This is from one perspective. From another perspective the evidence for this is not just the action of the Messenger  but it is his action and his saying as well. So the Messenger’s  saying,

is also an evidence.

One issue still remains; who will be the one to expound what is right and that his opinion is considered to be the preponderant? We have explained that in the Sharī’ah rules the quwwa addalīl (strength of the evidence) is preferred, and in the opinion which leads to an action, the view of the majority is preferred. And that in the opinion which leads to a thought, the technical matters and questions of definition, in all these matters the correct opinion is preferred. It remains for us to identify who will expound the right opinion and whose opinion will be preponderant. The answer is that the one who outweighs the correct opinion is the one who has jurisdiction over the matter in question, he is the one who leads the people that is, their leader, since he is the one who assumes the task of consulting the people. When the community consults each other, it only does that to reach an opinion so as to proceed according to it. To proceed according to it as a community it becomes necessary to have a leader over them so only he should have the authority over the matter for which the consultation takes place. The one to outweigh the correct opinion should be only him, the one who leads the people. The evidence for this is the verse which states:

So the shura was performed by the Messenger  and he was the leader of the Muslims. Allah  gave him the right to decide, to implement what he decides after the consultation i.e, what he views as being correct. So he was the one who outweighed what was correct. Likewise, it is the same situation with any leader of a people because this is not special to the Messenger  but general to all Muslims. This is because the speech of the Messenger  is a speech to his Ummah as long as there is no evidence to specify it to him. And here there are no evidences to make it specific to the Messenger . So it is general (‘aam).

As for when the community does not have a leader and it wishes to select some one who will have the right to outweigh the correct opinion. In this situation the community should choose a single person only so that he will have the right to outweigh the correct opinion. The community is not allowed to choose more than one person. This is because outweighing the correct opinion cannot be undertaken by more than one person. Indeed the majority might state the correct opinion and the correct opinion might lie more with two persons as opposed to one but the issue is not the possibility of with whom the correct opinion lies rather who will outweigh the correct opinion. Is it one person or two? That cannot be possible for the majority, because following the majority (opinion) is contrary to adopting the correct opinion. They are two opposite issues. Thus, the majority is adhered to irrespective of the correct opinion, and the correct opinion is adhered to irrespective of the majority.

As for the fact that only one person should outweigh the correct opinion and that it is not permitted for more than one person to do so. This is obligatory due to a number of reasons:

First: That reality of the correct opinion makes it inevitable that there should be one person because if the outweighing is left to two, three or more persons they will only disagree. And this disagreement of theirs will force them to refer to arbitration. If they appoint two people as arbitrators they will only disagree so the judgement will have to go to one of them. Then the right to judge will have been referred to one person only. If they appoint three arbitrators then their disagreement will be unavoidable, then the judgement will be given either to one or two persons. If they refer to two persons then they would have referred to the majority opinion whereas it is required that they refer the correct opinion, It becomes inevitable that they refer to one person. Therefore, it is imperative that from the beginning the judgement is given to only one person i.e, the one who outweighs the correct opinion should be one person only. The disagreement that occurs between two or three persons occurs between people of greater number than that. So passing judgement should not be given to more than one person because when more than one person is given the right to pass a judgement, the judgement goes to the majority and not to what is right. What is intended is the judgement on the correct opinion and not the majority.

Second: The basis in outweighing the correct opinion is that it should only be for the one in authority and it should be only one person because if he is an ameer i.e a leader then he can only be one person and if he is implementing the matter for which the consultation took place then he should be one person only because two persons will unavoidably disagree about the styles of implementation, their disagreement will obstruct the implementation. Therefore, the person in authority should only be one. Consequently, the person who outweighs the correct opinion should be one person only.

Third: For the Muslims the post of the Khilafah is the greatest thing. The Islamic Law has granted the Khalifah the sole authority to outweigh one rule over another in the adoption of rules and it has given him the right to be alone in his adoption based on the strength of the evidence and it has given him the sole right to outweigh the correct opinion. He has the sole right to declare war, conclude a treaty, define the relationship with the Kafir nations and anything else that comes under the authority of the Khalifah. The looking after the affairs has been made subject to his opinion only, according to what he sees as being correct to undertake. The ijma’ of the Sahabah has taken place on this. The opinion of the Khalifah is the opinion of one person only so by greater reason (min bab awla) for things of lesser importance than that weighty task - that is, the job of the Khalifah- the correct opinion should be outweighed by a single person.

This is the matter of shura (consultation) and tashawur (mutual consultation) which is the adoption of opinions and this is the rule of the Sharī’ah with regards it. This rule differs completely with the democratic rule. This rule of Allah  concerning the adoption of opinions is the only true one. Anything else emanating from democracy is false and it cannot be accepted.