Authority-Holders (wulat al-umur) in Contemporary Islamic Politics and Governance: The Case of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

This article examines the meanings, developments and implementations of the Islamic traditional perspective of governance—the authority-holders (wulat al-umur) in contemporary Saudi Arabia. In the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, perhaps more than in any other Islamic country, the perspectives of wulat al-umur still dominate socio-political rhetoric and practices and determine the ruler/ruled relationship to a large extent. Who are these authority-holders? What is their scope of authority? Relevant studies often attribute the connotation authority-holders to the politicians (umara) sitting at the center of power and also to the religious scholars (ulama), who may wield a certain amount of influence on the politicians. Yet, while this study agrees, in principle, with the scholarly observations of an asymmetric ulama/umara power structure, it argues that the ulama do enjoy significant power in Saudi Arabia, that is, they play an important role in shaping the socio-cultural landscape of the kingdom.

Key Words:

• Authority
• Authority-Holders
• Government
• Saudi Arabia
• Ulama
• Umara

Notes

¹ In this article, the term ulama is used in a broad sense and includes all those scholars associated with religious functions in Saudi Arabia. Umara, on the other hand, refers mainly to rulers from within the Saudi royal family.

² See, for example, A. al-Yassini (1985) Religion and State in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Boulder, CO: Westview Press); A. Layish (1984) Ulama and Politics in Saudi Arabia, in: M. Heper & R. Israeli (eds) Islam and Politics in the Modern Middle East, pp. 29–63 (London: Croom Helm)29–63; O. al-Rawaf (1980), The Concept of Five Crises in Political Development: Relevance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, PhD thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, cited in M. Abir (1988) Saudi Arabia in the Oil Era: Regime and Elites, Conflict and Collaboration, p. 29 (London: Croom Helm). Other studies on religion and state in modern Saudi Arabia include: A. Bligh (1985) The Saudi Religious Elite (‘Ulama’) as Participant in the Political System of the Kingdom, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 17, pp. 37–50; J. Kechichian (1986) The Role of the ‘Ulama’ in the Politics of an Islamic State: The Case of Saudi Arabia, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 18, pp. 53–71; J. Nevo (1998) Religion and National Identity in Saudi Arabia, Middle Eastern Studies, 34, pp. 34–53; and M. Nehme (1994) Saudi Arabia 1950–1980: Between Nationalism and Religion, Middle Eastern Studies, 30, pp. 930–943. On the ulama in modern times, see M. Hatina (ed.) (2009) Guardians of Faith in Modern Times: Ulama in the Middle East (Leiden: Brill).

³ Al-Yassini, Religion and State, p. 59.

⁴ Layish, Ulama and Politics, p. 53.

⁵ Al-Rawaf, The Concept of Five Crises, p. 527.

⁶ M. al-Rasheed (2007) Contesting the Saudi State: Islamic Voices from a New Generations, pp. 45–54 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

⁷ Al-Yassini, Religion and State, p. 68.

⁸ The issue of God’s sovereignty was raised in the very early stages of Islam when Ali Ibn Abu Talib, the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph (656–661), responded to a group in his camp called Khawarij, who opposed arbitration for resolving a political dispute with a competing political faction led by Muʿawiya (founder of the Umayyad Dynasty, 661–750). According to the Khawarij, this represented an arbitrary acceptance of the dominion of human beings, rather than that of God. Ali responded by calling upon the people to gather around him. He produced a copy of the Qurʾan and instructed it to speak to the people and to inform them regarding God’s law. The people were shocked and exclaimed: ‘What are you doing? The Qurʾan cannot speak, for it is not a human being!’ Ali then explained that this was exactly his point: The Qurʾan is but ink and paper, and does not speak for itself. Instead, human beings must manifest it according to their limited judgments and opinion. See Muhhammad Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad al-Shawkani (n.d.) Nayl al-Awtar Sharh Muntaqa al-Akhbar, 7:166 (Cairo: Dar al-Hadith); Shihab al-Din Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani (1993) Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 14, p. 303 (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr).

⁹ A. Ibn Baz (1997a) Wujub al-Iʿtisam bi-Kitab Allah wa-Sunnat Rasulihi wa-l-tahdhir mimma Yukhalifuhuma, in: Muhammad b. Saʿd al-Shuwayʿir (ed.) Majmu‘ Fatawa wa-Maqalat Mutanawwiʿa, 1: 72, 231–242 (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Maʿarif); A. Ibn Baz (1997b) al-Radd ʿala man Yaʿtabiru al-Ahkam al-Sharʿiyya Ghayr Mutanasiba maʿ al-ʿAsr al-Hadir, in ibid., 1:415; A. Ibn Baz (1997c) Hukm al-Islam fi man Zaʿama anna al-Qurʾan Mutanaqid aw Mushtamil ʿala baʿd al-Khurafat aw Wasafa al-Rasul bi-ma Yatadammanu Tanaqqusahu aw al-Taʿn fi Risalatihi, in ibid., 1: 82–88.

¹⁰ See B. Lewis (1974) Politics and War, in: J. Schacht & C.E. Bosworth (eds) The Legacy of Islam, p. 159 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

¹¹ Shaykh ʿAbd-al ʿAziz Ibn Baz is one of the most authoritative Sunni religious scholars in the twentieth century, who held many important domestic and international religious functions, most notably as the head of the World Muslim League, the BSU, the CRLO and the Grand Mufti of the Kingdom from 1993 until his death in 1999.

¹² I. Baz, Wujub Tahkim SharʿAllah, in: MajmuʿFatawa (ed.) al-Shuwayʿir, 1:72.

¹³ Translations from Arabic are by the author, except Qurʾanic translations, which rely on Yusuf ʿAli ʿAbdullah, The Holy Qurʾan (Brentwood, MD: Amana Corporation, 1989).

¹⁴ I. Baz, Wujub Tahkim SharʿAllah, in Majmuʿ Fatawa (ed.) al-Shuwayʿir, 1: 268–269; other Qurʾanic verses cited by I. Baz were: 42:10; 5:44, 45, 47, 50, 51; 9:23.

¹⁵ On the doctrine of walaʾ wa-baraʾ in contemporary Wahhabi legal and theological thought, see Ahmad b. ʿAbd al-Raziq al-Dawish (2000) Fatawa al-Lajna al Da’ima li-l-Buhuth al-ʿIlmiyya wa-l-Ifta’ wa-l-Da‘wa wa-l- Irshad, 2, pp. 41–89 (Riyadh: Maktabat al-ʿAbikan, 2000)–.

¹⁶ I. Baz, Wujub Tahkim SharʿAllah, in: Majmuʿ Fatawa (ed.) al-Shuwayʿir, 1, p. 79.

¹⁷ M. Weber (1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, pp. 215–245 (New York, Bedminster Press).

¹⁸ On the attempts of Arab Gulf monarchies to construct and use ideologies to gain the loyalty of their citizens see E. Davis (1991) Theorizing Statecraft and Social Change in Arab Oil Producing Countries, in: E. Davis & N. Gavrielides (eds) Statecraft in the Middle East: Oil, Historical Memory, and Popular Culture, pp. 1–35 (Miami: Florida International University Press). For a general discussion on the role of the tribes in the politics of the Arabian Peninsula, see J. E. Peterson (1977) Tribes and Politics in Eastern Arabia, Middle East Journal, 31, pp. 297–312.

¹⁹ J Kostiner (1990) Transforming Dualities: Tribe and State Formation in Saudi Arabia, in: P. Khoury & J. Kostiner (eds) Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, pp. 226–248 (Berkeley: University of California Press); C. Helms (1981) The Cohesion of Saudi Arabia, pp.181–274 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press); M. al-Atawneh (2009) Reconciling Tribalism and Islam in the Writings of Contemporary Wahhabi Ulama, in: M. Hatina (ed.) Facing Modernity: Rethinking Ulama in the Arab Middle East, pp. 211–227 (Leiden: E. J. Brill).

²⁰ For more on authority in Islam see K. Abou El Fadl (2001) Speaking in God’s Name, pp. 31–85 (Oxford: Oneworld Press).

²¹ ʿAbd Allah al-Salih al-ʿUthaymin (1987) Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab: Hayatuhu wa-Fikruhu, p. 136 (Riyadh: Dar al-ʿUlum).

²² Al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 7, p. 117. The full fatwa may be found in ibid, pp. 115–19. See also al-Sharq al-Awsat, May 5, 1993.

²³ Al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 7, pp. 115–122.

²⁴ Ibid, pp. 359–361.

²⁵ In modern, as in classical, Arabic discourse, the term siyasa is defined as ‘proper administration of the subjects by political office-holders,’ and the practitioner is called saʾis, derived from the root s-y-s. Ibn Khaldun defined siyasa as tadbir shuʾun al-raʿiyya (the administration of the affairs of subjects, is undertaken by caring for their well-being and needs, their property and honor, and the dispatch of justice between and among them). The term sharʿiyya is derived from the root sh-r-ʿ, and is an expression of the application of Shariʿa practice. Thus, the compound siyasa sharʿiyya describes administrative practice (siyasa) within the limits assigned to it by Islamic law. See, respectively, I. Manzur (1956) Lisan al-ʿArab, p. 108 (Beirut: Dar al-Sadir); I. Khaldun (1982) Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldun, p. 213 (Alexandria: Dar Ibn Khaldun); also see the English translation by F. Rosenthal (2015) The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, abridged ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

²⁶ Al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 7, p. 118.

²⁷ Ibid, p. 119.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Ibid. On the substantial differences between nasiha and Western forms of criticism, see T. Asad (1993) The Limits of Religious Criticism in the Middle East: Notes on Islamic Public Argument, in: T. Asad (ed.) Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reason of Power in Christianity and Islam, pp. 200–236 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University).

³⁰ See Majallat al-Buhuth al-Islamiyya (MBI) [Journal of the General Presidency of the Directorate of Scientific Studies (1975–2009), Issuance of Fatwas, Propagating Islam, and (Religious) Guidance (in Arabic)], 84 vols. (Riyadh: al-Riʾasa al-ʿAmma li-l-Buhuth al-ʿIlmiyya wa-l-Iftaʾ, 1975–2009), 1, pp. 95–128, 409–410; 4, pp. 35–47; 18, pp. 13–69; 19, pp. 17–133; 20, pp. 13–144; 23, pp. 11–82; 26, pp. 27–77; 28, pp. 23–50.

³¹ Al-Rasheed, Contesting the Saudi State, p. 47.

³² This doctrine is well known in classical Islamic sources, where it often is defined as a masdar tashriʿi tabʿi (ancillary legislative source) based on Muslim legal principles, such as: seeking good will, striving for betterment for all (istihsan); public interest (al-maslaha al-ʿamma); local custom (ʿurf); consideration of practical outcomes (iʿtibar maʾalat al-afʿal); correct interpretation of the intentions of the Shariʿa (maqasid al-Shariʿa); sensitivity to disagreement in Shariʿa matters (muraʿat al-khilaf) and the prohibition of evasive legal devices (sadd al-dhariʿa). In practice, these principles serve most of the madhhabs (schools of Islamic thought) as the bases for legitimizing the use of siyasa sharʿiyya. For instance, the Malikis rely on the principle of istislah to define the vested authority of the sovereign, empowering him to use his mental faculties to develop legal procedures in accordance with public interests. This principle is expressed in the deliberations of Ibn Farhun (d.1397), who defined the actions of a ruler within the structure of siyasa sharʿiyya doctrine as the ikhraj al-haqq min al-mazalim (the uncovering of grievances). Ibn Farhun considered the discovery of the truth to be the essence of siyasa sharʿiyya, so he emphasized that a ruler’s actions fall within the framework of deterrence and the prevention of iniquity. For the Malikis, a ruler’s decrees on matters of criminal justice of a Shariʿa nature are recognized within the three categories of punishment (hudud, qasas, and taʿzir), as opposed to the view of the Hanafi school, which limits a ruler’s activities to discretionary punishment (taʿzir). Al-Shatibi (d.1370), also a member of the Maliki school, supported the investiture of broad powers in the ruler within the structure of this doctrine, his main contention being that there is no imposition of obligation (taklif) without independent reasoning (ijtihad). Al-Shatibi was of the opinion that the various innovations and challenges of the time require the constant adjustment of the law. Thus, the creation of new Shariʿa methodology is a result of necessity and a condition for imposing obligations (taklif). The Shafiʿis defined siyasa sharʿiyya by means of the application of the principle of the maqasid al-Shariʿa (the intentions of the Shariʿa). For instance, Ibn ʿAbd al-Salam (d.1240) claimed that it is the obligation of a ruler or his appointee to seek out the intentions of the Shariʿa in order to reach the greatest common good. Ibn ʿAbd al-Salam’s claim gained support among other Shafiʿi scholars, whose position was backed by the practice of ijtihad, albeit they used maslaha instead of siyasa sharʿiyya.

The siyasa sharʿiyya doctrine is also recognized by the Hanbali school, where it merges with the mechanisms of maslaha. Ibn ʿAqil (d.1119), for instance, supported the broad discretionary authority of the ruler within the structure of the siyasa sharʿiyya doctrine. Ibn ʿAqil defined it thus: ‘… ma kana fiʿlan yakunu maʿahu al-nas aqrab ila al-maslaha wa-abʿad ʿan al-fasad, wa-in lam yasdaʿahu al-rasul wa-la nazila bihi wahi’ (Whatever draws people closer to justice and farther from corruption, even though it does not emanate from the Prophet or an angel).

Ibn Taymiyya’s pupil, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d.1350), followed in his master’s footsteps, permitting the even wider use of siyasa sharʿiyya doctrine by means of the same mechanism, the principle of maslahha. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya defined siyasa sharʿiyya as milestones (ʿalamat wa-amarat) in the process in which the Divine will and that of the Prophet are revealed. It is worth noting that Ibn al-Qayyim’s approach resembles that of Ibn Farhhun in his Tabsirat al-Hukkam.

Finally, the siyasa sharʿiyya doctrine was viewed favorably also by the Egyptian Salafi movement, mainly in the teachings of Muhammad ʿAbduh (d.1905) and his pupil Muhammad Rashid Rida (d.1935). ʿAbduh regarded siyasa sharʿiyya as one of the important tools for introducing changes and reform under the aegis of the Shariʿa. Thus, for example, among his suggestions for reforming the Islamic legal system, he proposed that the ruler should make decisions concerning religious endowment (waqf) and some of those concerning personal status. Rida, on the other hand, defined the ruler’s authority and pointed out his obligation to provide solutions to contemporary problems by means of the ijtihad, done by the Caliph himself in consultation with the ʿulamaʾ, as the masters of ahl al-hall wa-l-ʿaqd (literally meaning, those who loose and bind). However, whenever the opinions of the Caliph and ʿulamaʾ clash, and neither contradicts the Shariʿa, Rida calls upon the ʿulamaʾ to obey the Caliph. See I. Farhun (n.d.) Tabsirat al-Hukkam fi Usul al-Aqdiya wa-Manahij al-Ahkam, 2, p. 137 (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya). More on siyasa sharʿiyya in ‘Abd al-Fattah Amru (1998), al-Siyasa Sharʿiyya fi al-Ahwal al-Shakhsiyya (‘Amman: Dar al-Nafaʾis); M. al-Qadi (1989) al-Siyasa al-Sharʿiyya: Masdar li-l-Taqnin bayna al-Nazariyya wa-l-iTatbiq (Cairo: [n. p.]); Y. al-Qaraddawi (1998) al-Siyasa al-Sharʿiyya fi duʾ Nusus al-Shari‘a wa-Maqasiduha (Cairo: Maktabat Wahbah); M. Abu Zahra (1957) Usul al-Fiqh (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-ʿArabi); Ibn Farhun (n.d.) Tabsirat al-Hukkam fi Usul al-‘Aqadiyya wa- Manahij al-Ahkam (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya); al-Shatibi (1969) al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Ahkam (Cairo: Maktabat Muhammad ʿAli Sabih); Ibn ʿAbd al-Salam (1980) Qawaʿid al-Ahkam fi Masalih al-Anam (Beirut: Dar al-Jil); al-Dimashqi (1991) Kifayat al-Akhyar fi Hall Ghayat al-Ikhtisar (Beirut: Dar al-Khayr); al-Shirazi (1996) al-Muhadhdhab fi Fiqh al-Imam al-Shafiʿi (Beirut: al-Dar al-Shamiyya); al-Mawardi (n.d.) al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya wa-l-Wilayat al-Diniyya (Cairo: al-Matbaʿa al-Mahmudiyya al-Tijariyya); Ibn al-Farraʾ (1974) al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya (Indonesia: Maktabat Ahmad b. Saʿd b. Nubayhan); M. Kerr (1968), Islamic Reform: The Political and Legal Theories of Muhammad ʿAbduh and Rashid Rida (Berkeley: University of California Press).

³³ Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, al-Nizam al-Asasi li-l-Hukm, May 1992, p. 15.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ F. Vogel (2000) Islamic Law and Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia, pp. 169–170, 222–278, 341–343 (Leiden: E.J. Brill).

³⁶ See B. Messick (1993) The Mufti, the Text and the World, Man, 21, p. 111. On iftaʾ and qadaʾ, see M. al-Ashqar (1993) al-Futya wa-Manahij al-Ifta’ (‘Amman: Dar al-Nafaʾis); A. K. Reinhart (1994) Transcendence and Social Practice: Muftis and Qadis as Religious Interpreters, Annales Islamoloqigues, 27, pp. 5–28; S. Jackson (1996) Islamic Law and the State: The Constitutional Jurisprudence of Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, pp. 201–217 (Leiden: E.J. Brill).

³⁷ The CRLO is a branch of the BSU, both directly subordinate to the Grand Mufti.

³⁸ Saʿd Ibn Zafir (1999) al-Ijraʾat al-Jinaʾiyya fi Jaraʾim al-Hudud fi al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿudiyya wa-Atharaha fi Istitbab al-Amn (Riyadh: Maktabat Fahd al-Wataniyya), 1, p. 99; Fatwa No. 850 of 16 March 1978 became law under Royal Decree No. 4/174277.

³⁹ This fatwa from November 9, 1990 appears in MBI No. 30 (1990), pp. 297–300 and was rendered into law by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of the Interior on November 15, 1990. See al-Riyadh, No. 8178 of November 15, 1990; ʿUkaz, No. 8884 of November 15, 1990.

⁴⁰ Khalwa is an Islamic legal term that means ‘valid privacy with the wife’.

⁴¹ Ibn Zafir, al-Ijraʾat al-Jinaʾiyya, 1, p. 85; Fatwa No. 52 of April 4, 1977 became law under regulation 12/133, issued by the Saudi Minister of Justice on June 4, 1981; see the fatwa in MBI, No.1 (1979), pp. 95–100; see also Qasim al-Shammaʿi (n.d), Fatawa Islamiyya, 2, pp. 395–409 (Beirut: Dar al-Arqam).

⁴² I. Zafir, al-Ijra’at al-Jina’iyya, 1, p. 99; Royal Decree No. 8/1226 of May 18, 1980.

⁴³ This fatwa may be found in al-Shuway‘ir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 1, pp. 418–427.

⁴⁴ Royal Decree No. 4/30820, of December 21, 1976. See the relevant fatwa in al- Shammaʿi, Fatawa Islamiyya, pp. 256–266; and al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 3, pp. 354–356.

⁴⁵ al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 3, p. 95; Royal Decree No. 8/1858 of October 23, 1979.

⁴⁶ See the fatwa in al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 3, pp. 19–20.

⁴⁷ Royal Decree No. 80/1631 of July 30, 1980. On the Saudi muftis’ positions on meetings between the genders see al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 5, pp. 236–241.

⁴⁸ Royal Decree No. 3/27746, of October 12, 1980.

⁴⁹ Al-Shammaʿi, Fatawa Islamiyya, 2, pp. 97–98; and Royal Decree No. 14340 of October 24, 1967. On the rules governing weddings, as determined by the ʿulamaʾ, see al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 4, pp. 120–122.

⁵⁰ Al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 5, p. 111; and Royal Decree No. 4/12368 of May 4, 1978.

⁵¹ Asia News, March 26, 2009.

⁵² Al-Dawish, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 26, p. 277.

⁵³ See: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2005/10/16/17745.html, accessed June 10, 2017.

⁵⁴ For further accounts on the ‘modernization’ of the Saudi state, see T. al-Hamad (1985), Political Order in Changing Societies: Saudi Arabia: Modernization in a Traditional Context, PhD thesis (Los Angeles: University of Southern California), pp.12–18; 152–171; Abir, Saudi Arabia in the Oil Era, pp. 19–34, 69–94; F. al-Farsy (1990) Modernity and Tradition: The Saudi Equation (London: Kegan Paul International); idem (1982) Saudi Arabia: A Case Study in Development (London: Kegan Paul International); J. H. Thompson & R. C. Reischauer (eds) (1966) Modernization of the Arab World (Princeton: Van Nostrand); G. Lenczowski (1967) Tradition and Reform in Saudi Arabia, Current History 52, pp. 98–104; R. Looney (1990) Economic Development in Saudi Arabia: Consequences of the Oil Price Decline (Greenwich: JAI Press); A. al-Sadhan (1980) The Modernization of the Saudi Bureaucracy, in: A. Beling (ed.) King Faysal and the Modernization of Saudi Arabia, pp. 75–124 (London: Croom Helm).

⁵⁵ J. Piscatori (1980) The Role of Islam in Saudi Arabia’s Political Development, in: J. Esposito (ed.) Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change, pp. 135–136 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press); see more on this fatwa in Kechichian, The Role of the ʿUlamaʾ, pp. 60–63.

⁵⁶ Al-Shuwayʿir, Majmuʿ Fatawa, 7, pp. 359–361.