Is it Permissibility to set a Time Limit on the Ruler’s Term

The norm concerning the social contract of the ruler as envisioned by the jurists throughout the centuries is that it was of a permanent nature. The ruler would not leave his position unless he had some physical shortcoming or was no longer considered righteous.

However, the question arises as to whether it is permissible to set a term limit for the Imam (ruler) or president at the outset, after which time the nation would again be allowed to choose its leader. Such term limits could definitely protect the nation from having to forcibly remove the ruler and from resorting to violence.

The position of the Imam or leader is that of a social contract and, as such, it adheres to the principles of contracts. There are two parties to this contract: the ruler and the nation. The ruler must protect the religious and worldly needs of his citizenry. If that is the case, what is there to prevent the nation from having the right to check and watch over the ruler?

The reality is that putting conditions on those in authority is something well-established in fiqh. Al-Shaukaani entitles a chapter in Nail al-Autaar, “Chapter: Making the Authority Conditional.”  rtical-align: baseline;”> In that chapter, he records the hadith from al-Bukhari in which ibn Umar said, “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) appointed Zaid ibn Haarithah the leader of the army for the Battle of Mutah. He commanded that if Zaid were killed, the leadership would go to Jafar. And if Jafar were killed, it should go to Abdullah ibn Rawaahah.” When Umar was the caliph, he gave similar instructions to his army before a battle.

Many researchers even noted that making the oath of allegiance conditional is not something new to the Shariah. The most important case of this nature is the oath made by the Ansar of Madinah when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) first came to Madinah. They had pledged allegiance to protect the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) like they would protect their families from any enemy that may enter Madinah. For that reason, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was going to go outside of Madinah to fight at Badr, he sought the Ansar’s acceptance and approval because that was not covered under the conditions of their original oath.

Similarly, Ahmad records in his Musnad that Abu Waail said to the Companion Abdulrahmaan ibn Auf, “How did you pledge allegiance to Uthmaan and leave Ali?” He replied, “What sin did I commit? I started with Ali and said to him, ‘I pledge allegiance to you according to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger and the way of Abu Bakr and Umar, (do you accept)?’ He said, ‘In that which I am able to do.’ Then I said the same to Uthmaan and he replied, ‘Yes.’”

In al-Ahkaam al-Sultaaniyyah, al-Maawardi has indicated the permissibility of conditional acceptance of a ruler. He explains that the purpose of the ruler is for general welfare and the social contract is like any other particular contract. He further says that such conditional pledges were practiced among both the Umayyads and Abbasids. Al-Maawardi’s view was also indicated by Abu Yala in his al-Ahkaam al-Sultaaniyyah as well.

Thus, the authority to choose a leader actually belongs exclusively to the Muslim populous. Hence, they have the right to form the government, watch over the government and remove the government. This is what the Rightly-Guided Caliphs taught. Just before his death, Abu Bakr said to the people, “Allah is returning the affair to your hands so choose the leader that you love.” A similar message can be found in the words of Umar and Ali (may Allah be pleased with all of them).

It has been established that the ruler takes power either through selection of the ahl al-hall wa al-aqd (respected, influential members of society) or via appointment by the previous ruler. In order to avoid confusion and possible violence, the latter was the path followed throughout Islamic history. However, that was based on what was expedient and beneficial at that time, which is the overriding principle related to selection of a ruler. The same overriding principle states that it should be permissible for the term of the ruler to be limited if that is what is expedient and beneficial. At the end of the period, they could keep the ruler or choose someone else in his place if the ruler did not live up to expectations.

On this point, one cannot argue that such a practice was never followed by the pious predecessors and therefore it is an innovation. This practice is related to the field of al-siyaasah al-shariyyah (the political aspects of the Shariah) which is built upon what is most beneficial for the people’s welfare. Any beneficial practice can be followed even if there is no specific text alluding to it or if it were not practiced previously in Islam. In fact, if such a practice accomplishes what is needed for the people’s welfare than it is definitely sanctioned in the Shariah and it may even become obligatory. However, this question of benefit or harm is one of juristic reasoning and must be left to the specialists in that field.

Removal of Rulers

The norm for the social contract for the ruler is that it is a binding contract in which neither party has an option of simply opting out. However, issues could come up that could lead to the ruler’s resignation or the right to remove him. Some of these issues are agree upon while others are disputed. They are explained below:

(1)    Apostasy

There is no question that the ruler must be a Muslim and that he may be removed from his post if he ever leaves Islam. Allah says in the Quran, “Never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way” (al-Nisaa 141). What greater way is there over the believers than being the ruler? After apostasy, there is to be no obedience to that ruler. This point is agreed upon.

May a Ruler Remove Himself?

The scholars differ on this point. The correct view is that if the ruler finds himself no longer capable to rule, he may excuse himself. He could also resign if that would bring an end to bloodshed among the Muslims. In fact, that could then be obligatory upon him. However, if he wishes to step down simply to lessen the worldly or religious burdens upon himself, that would only be acceptable if that would not cause greater harm to the nation and if they would have someone ready to replace him.

(2)    al-Fisq (Immorality, Sinfulness)

The scholars defy on the question of whether sinfulness requires that a ruler be disposed and revolted against. The Khawaarij, Mutazilah, Zaidis and some of the Ahl al-Sunnah say that the immoral ruler must be removed and revolted against. The majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah—in fact, some even claim a consensus on this point—say that sinfulness does not affect the continuance of the rule and that it is not permissible to revolt against a sinful ruler as such leads to a great deal of tribulations and the shedding of blood.

The evidence provided by the first group of scholars includes:

The generality of the texts that speak about ordering good and eradicating evil: For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whenever any of you sees an evil, he must change it with his hand. If it is not able to do so, he must change it with his tongue. If he is still not able to do so, he must change it with his heart, and that is the weakest manifestation of faith.” (Recorded by Muslim.)

The texts that indicate one should strive against oppressors and prevent them from committing harm: For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Allah did not send any prophet before me except that he had helpers and followers that followed his way and applied his orders. Then there came generations after them that would say that which they would not do and would do that which they were not ordered. Whoever strives against them with is hand is a believer. Whoever strives against them with his heart is a believer. Whoever strives against them with his tongue is a believer. Beyond that there is not even the slightest amount of faith.” (Recorded by Muslim.) Ibn Rajab stated, “This indicates the physical jihad against the rulers.”

The texts that indicate that Muslims should assist one another in righteousness and not in sin: For example, Allah says, “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression” (al-Maaidah 2).

The proponents of this view also point to the Companions who sided with Ali or with Muaawiyah as well as the point that if an evildoer is not allowed to be made the ruler he should not be allowed to continue as a ruler, as the reasoning (not properly attending to the affairs of the citizenry) would be the same.

The proponents of the second view (of not revolting) cite the following as evidence:

The numerous texts that command having patience with unjust rulers and that prohibit revolting against them: These texts are numerous in number and reach the level of being mutawaatir (definitive). These texts include among the many:

Ubaadah ibn al-Saamit said, “We made the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that we listen and obey (the orders) both at our difficult time and at our ease and at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah.” (Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)

Umm Salamah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “There will be rulers over you who will do things that you know to be correct and which you know to be wrong. Whoever dislikes that will be innocent and whoever objects to it will be safe. However the one who is pleased with it and follows it [will be sinful].” The people said, “Shall we not fight against them?” He replied, “Not as long as they pray.” (Recorded by Muslim.)

The scholars also cite the fact that many of the Companions and early generations stayed away from the trials, strife and fighting during their times. In fact, they argue that the opinion that was finally decided upon among them is that such fighting is to be avoided.

These scholars also argue that the evil of fighting against such rulers is greater than the evil that is created by such rulers. Therefore, it is obligatory to remain patient in order to avoid the greater harm. Islamic history is a clear indication that such revolts lead to much greater harm than good.

In critiquing the first view, one can say, first, that the texts related to ordering good and eradicating evil are of a general nature while those requiring restraint and not revolting are particular. The particular text must take precedence over the general text when there is an apparent conflict between the two. Second, those texts that mention striving against the rulers are to be understood, in order to reconcile the varying texts, as striving in a manner short of armed revolt against them. Third, citing the behavior of some Companions cannot be considered strong when it can be balanced by citing other Companions who had a different approach, especially given the fact that the scholars eventually ended up agreeing that armed revolutions are to be avoided. Finally, the argument that an evildoer is not to be appointed as a ruler means that he should not be allowed to continue as a ruler is not acceptable because there is a difference between when one is able to choose any individual to be a leader and the case where he is already a leader and great harm could result from attempting to remove him.

In sum, the strongest opinion is that it is not allowed to revolt against unjust rulers due to the clear texts on this issue.

There is one more important point here: Some of the Ahl al-Sunnah have said that it is prohibited to revolt against the ruler under any circumstances while others have said that it actually depends on weighing the costs and benefits of such an action. Those of the first view say that there has never been a case in our history where the benefits outweighed the costs while the latter group says that there is no need to remain patient at the wrongs of a ruler if one can remove them without any harm or without greater harm.

In my opinion, armed revolt, all must agree upon, must be avoided due to the harm it produces. As ibn Taimiyyah said, it does not produce good but harm, as history demonstrates. However, as for attempting to remove the ruler through non-violent means, such as demonstrations, the ruling for them would be based on whether their benefit outweighs their harm. Of course, judging the costs and benefits is not left up to any individual citizen but is to be determined by leaders of society (ahl al-hall wa al-aqd).

One final point needs to be discussed. The ruler’s purpose is to protect the religion and worldly needs of the citizenry. If he fails to do so—in fact, if he causes, division and worldly and religious harm—does his social contract with the citizenry come to an end? Are the people now free from the pledge of allegiance to him regardless of whether he call his actions disbelief (kufr) or not? In my view, we must first distinguish between two possibilities. The first is where the shortcoming on the part of the ruler is irregular and temporary and the second where it is a continual paradigm by the ruler. In the former case, the social contract of the ruler definitely does not come to an end. In the latter case, there is no way to argue that his role as a leader can continue as he is working against the exact purpose for which a ruler is needed. In such a case, there is more right to remove that individual than to remain united under his harm and falsehood.