Deconstructing the Concept of Hakimiyyah in Sayyid Qutb’s Thought! (1/2)

Summary

This study deconstructs the concept of “Hakimiyyah” (Divine Hakimiyyah) as presented by Sayyid Qutb in his book “Milestones” (“Ma’alim fi al-Tariq”). The deconstruction relies on the Quranic text and its context, highlighting that extracting a verse from its context is what the Quran terms a “fragmented reading.”

This study sheds light on the “fragmentary deception” employed by Sayyid Qutb in excommunicating (takfir) any Muslim who rejects the concept of Hakimiyyah as he presented it. This concept continues to be advocated by political Islam movements and the extremist organizations that have emerged from them.

The paper demonstrates that the matter of state and Hakimiyyah is a human affair, not a divine one. It illustrates the Prophet’s application of a civil state through the “Constitution of Medina” and the Prophetic conduct, and it clarifies the alignment of the concept of Divine Hakimiyyah (Hakimiyyah) with the concept of Imamate in Khomeini’s Iran. This is discussed in two parts through the following topics:

Topics:

Part One:

• Introduction
• The Term ” Hakimiyyah” in the Holy Qur’an: Was it Distorted by Sayyid Qutb?
• The Distortion and Deception of the Term “Hakimiyyah” by Advocates of Political Islam!
• The Concept of the Theory of Hakimiyyah: Its Content, Origins, Outcomes, and Consequences!
• The Deception of Sayyid Qutb!

Part Two:

• Deconstructing Sayyid Qutb’s Concept of Hakimiyyah!
• First Issue: The State is a Human Affair, Not a Divine One!
• Did the Khawarij and the Mu’tazila Precede Karl Marx in the Concept of the Existence of the State?
• Second Issue: Hakimiyyah and Authority Between the Israelites and the Message of Islam
• Third Issue: The Prophet’s State and the Secular Nature of Its Constitution!
• The Alignment of Sayyid Qutb’s Concept of Hakimiyyah with Imamate in Khomeinism!
• Sayyid Qutb’s Excommunication of Muslim Societies that Do Not Abide by Divine Hakimiyyah!
• Conclusion and Findings

“The Hakimiyyah of Allah” is a political concept with a distinctly religious character and stands as one of the most prominent ideas in the political thought of Islamists. It encompasses a political theory, which its proponents claim is based on religious foundations, making it the central axis of political ideology for Islamists across the spectrum—from moderate political factions to extremist jihadist groups.

The core idea underpinning this theory was first introduced in the book “The Four Terms in the Quran” by the Indian scholar Abul A’la Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami movement in India. The four terms that he emphasizes are “God (Ilah),” “Lord (Rabb),” “Worship (Ibadah),” and “Religion (Din).” In his book, Maududi argues that understanding Islam in its true form, as a religion of monotheism and a comprehensive way of life, hinges on a correct understanding of these terms. He asserts that early Muslims comprehended these terms in their original Quranic context, thereby grasping the essence of Islam as both a religion and a comprehensive system for life. However, over time, these concepts became distorted, and the terms lost their Quranic meanings, leading Muslims away from the core of Islam. As a result, Maududi claims that Muslims have unwittingly reached a state of shirk (associating partners with God) by accepting any form of political authority that is not based on God’s Hakimiyyah.

Building on this foundation, Sayyid Qutb adopted Maududi’s approach to interpreting and understanding these Quranic terms and further developed the theory of “Hakimiyyah of God” in his works, notably “In the Shade of the Qur’an” (Fi Zilal al-Qur’an) and “Milestones” (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq).

Qutb’s theory explores the nature of Hakimiyyah and political authority in an Islamic state as he envisioned it. The concept of “Hakimiyyah” is derived from the Quranic term “hukm” (judgment), which appears in various Quranic verses. Qutb followed the path of his predecessors who had politicized the term, interpreting “hukm” in a political sense as referring to Hakimiyyah. He then engaged deeply in philosophical interpretations of the texts where the term appears, ultimately arriving at an intellectual and political understanding that seeks to redefine the Islamic approach to Hakimiyyah and politics. This interpretation stands in contrast to more traditional understandings of the role of Hakimiyyah within Islam.

Was the term “hukm” and “mulk” (Hakimiyyah) in the Holy Qur’an distorted by Sayyid Qutb?

Setting aside the logic of interpretation and philosophy, I believe any Arabic reader of the Qur’an, if they were to trace the term “hukm” wherever it appears in the Qur’an using a thematic exegesis approach, would clearly realize that it never once appears with a connotation of “Hakimiyyah” in the political sense, and it has no relation to this concept whatsoever. As Dr. Muhammad Emara states, most of the Quranic uses of this term came in two meanings: the first meaning is judgment and resolution of disputes, and the second meaning is wisdom, i.e., jurisprudence, knowledge, and intellectual consideration. The term “hukm” has no relation to caliphate, imamate, or what we refer to as a political system in our modern political literature.

Returning to the literature of political thought in Arab-Islamic heritage, we find that the term “hukm” was not used in the realm of Arab-Islamic awareness and culture to refer to political authority. Instead, political authority was referred to by the term “mulk” (with a damma on the meem and a sukoon on the lam), from which the term “malik” (with a fat-ha on the meem and a kasra on the lam) is derived, denoting the highest political ruler at the top of the political hierarchy.

The Holy Qur’an uses the term “mulk” when discussing models of Hakimiyyah systems that prevailed during the period of the prophetic message and before. All these systems relied on a monarchical model, even if their names differed, and knew no other political system. This term appears in many Quranic verses, such as:

• From verses (246/247) of Surah Al-Baqarah:

“Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs, ‘Appoint for us a king, and we will fight in the way of Allah’? He said, ‘Would you perhaps refrain from fighting if fighting was prescribed for you?’ They said, ‘And why should we not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?’ But when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, except for a few of them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers. Their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed, Allah has appointed for you Talut (Saul) as king.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him, and he has not been given any measure of wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah gives His Hakimiyyah to whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing, all-Knowing.’” (Quran 2:246-247)

• From verse (251) of Surah Al-Baqarah:

“So they defeated them by permission of Allah, and David killed Goliath, and Allah gave him the kingship and wisdom and taught him of that which He willed. And if it were not for Allah checking [some] people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the worlds.” (Quran 2:251)

• From verse (258) of Surah Al-Baqarah:

“Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship? When Abraham said, ‘My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,’ he said, ‘I give life and cause death.’ Abraham said, ‘Indeed, Allah brings up the sun from the east, so bring it up from the west.’ So the disbeliever was overwhelmed [by astonishment], and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (Quran 2:258)

• From verse (43) of Surah Yusuf:

“And the king said, ‘Indeed, I have seen [in a dream] seven fat cows being eaten by seven [that were] lean, and seven green spikes [of grain] and others [that were] dry. O eminent ones, explain to me my vision, if you should interpret visions.'” (Quran 12:43)

Like many other Quranic terms that carry multiple linguistic meanings, the term “Mulk” (kingdom) and its derivatives also have meanings beyond the political connotation. In various other contexts, it is used metaphorically to express Allah’s divinity and His absolute Hakimiyyah over all of existence. Allah, Glory be to Him, chose for Himself the name “Al-Malik” (The King) as one of His beautiful names. This is mentioned, for example, in verse 116 of Surah Al-Mu’minun:

“Exalted is Allah, the True King; there is no deity except Him, Lord of the Noble Throne.”He is the Owner of Hakimiyyah, and to Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth.

On the Term “Amr” (Command):

The term “Amr” as an individual linguistic word does not specifically refer to the concept of Hakimiyyah in the political sense. It is a general linguistic term that can be used metaphorically to express any issue, idea, or abstract concept. Its true meaning, with its general nature—like many other Quranic terms—is not precisely understood except in the context of the text in which it appears. Thus, it appears in the Quran in several verses indicating meanings other than Hakimiyyah, such as:

As mentioned in verse 18 of Surah Yusuf:”And they brought upon his shirt false blood. [Jacob] said, ‘Rather, your souls have enticed you to something, so patience is most fitting. And Allah is the one sought for help against that which you describe.'” (Quran 12:18)

As mentioned in verse 10 of Surah Al-Kahf:”When the youths retreated to the cave and said, ‘Our Lord, grant us from Yourself mercy and prepare for us from our affair (amr) right guidance.'” (Quran 18:10)

As mentioned in verses 8 and 9 of Surah At-Talaq:”And how many a city was insolent toward the command of its Lord and His messengers, so We took it to severe account and punished it with a terrible punishment.” (Quran 65:8)

Frequently mentioned in the Quran:”[He is] the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter (amr), He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Quran 2:117, etc.)

There are numerous examples in the Quran where the term “amr” does not mean Hakimiyyah in the political sense and has no relation to the concept of Hakimiyyah or politics whatsoever.

Specific Uses of “command” Related to Hakimiyyah:

Among the uses of the term “command” in the Quran, some refer to Hakimiyyah and the administration of the affairs of Muslims, specifically relating to the matter of Hakimiyyah in the contemporary political sense. This meaning appears in the most significant texts concerning this matter (specifically for Muslims):

• “And their affair is [determined by] consultation among them” (Quran 42:38)
• “And consult them in the matter” (Quran 3:159)

Also related to this concept is the term “Wali al-Amr” (guardian or authority), referring to the ruler responsible for conducting affairs. One of the Quranic verses that mentions this meaning is:

• “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” (Quran 4:59)

Despite the rarity of this term’s usage with this specific meaning in the Quran, the term ” command ” is the term that Allah Almighty chose for Muslims among many other linguistic terms that denote Hakimiyyah, politics, and political authority. This choice carries profound divine wisdom and significance, which we can infer from the deep meanings contained within the term.

Like many other Quranic terms, it is not precisely understood except in the context in which it appears. Thus, in the Quran, it appears in many verses indicating meanings different from the concept of “Hakimiyyah,” such as:

• As mentioned in verse 18 of Surah Yusuf: “And they brought upon his shirt false blood. [Jacob] said, ‘Rather, your souls have enticed you to something, so patience is most fitting. And Allah is the one sought for help against that which you describe.'” (Quran 12:18)
• As mentioned in verse 10 of Surah Al-Kahf: “When the youths retreated to the cave and said, ‘Our Lord, grant us from Yourself mercy and prepare for us from our affair (command) right guidance.'” (Quran 18:10)
• As mentioned in verses 8 and 9 of Surah At-Talaq: “And how many a city was insolent toward the command of its Lord and His messengers, so We took it to severe account and punished it with a terrible punishment.” (Quran 65:8-9)
• As frequently mentioned in the Quran: “[He is] the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a (command), He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Quran 2:117, etc.)

There are numerous examples in the Quran where the term “amr” does not mean Hakimiyyah in the political sense and has no relation to the concept of Hakimiyyah or politics whatsoever.

Specific Uses of “Amr” Related to Hakimiyyah:

Among the uses of the term “amr” or command in the Quran, some refer to Hakimiyyah and the administration of the affairs of Muslims, specifically relating to the matter of Hakimiyyah in the contemporary political sense. This meaning appears in the most significant texts concerning this matter (specifically for Muslims):

• “And their affair is [determined by] consultation among them” (Quran 42:38)
• “And consult them in the matter” (Quran 3:159)

Also related to this concept is the term “Wali al-Amr” (guardian or authority), referring to the ruler responsible for conducting affairs. One of the Quranic verses that mentions this meaning is:

• “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” (Quran 4:59)

Despite the infrequent occurrence of this term with this specific meaning in the Quran, the term “Amr” (Command) is precisely the term chosen by Allah Almighty for Muslims among the many linguistic terms denoting “Hakimiyyah, politics, and political authority.” This choice carries profound divine wisdom and meanings, which we can discern from the intellectual depths that go beyond the terminological meaning. The generality of the term—even in its specific political connotation—has opened the doors for Muslims to engage in ijtihad (independent reasoning) regarding the methods of administration and Hakimiyyah in society. It has given them complete freedom to choose the political system and model of Hakimiyyah they desire, in line with the developments of political systems, intellectual knowledge, and contemporary changes. In other words, it did not bind Muslims to any model that might be suggested, even indirectly, by any alternative term. Thus, the term “Amr” aligns with this direction, allowing their “Amr”—their political system—to be whatever they choose, whether it be a caliphate, emirate, kingdom, presidency, or any other model. The key consideration is the substance, mechanisms of Hakimiyyah, and its objectives, not the title or the formal framework of the ruling political system.

The Distortion and Misrepresentation of the Term “Hakimiyyah” by Advocates of Political Islam:

Thus, it is the term “Amr” and not “Hukm” (judgment) that is the Quranic term indicating politics and the ruling political system in society. It is also the term used by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in all his sayings related to politics and the management of Muslim affairs. Moreover, it is the term that became prevalent in the political thought literature of early Islam. Deriving from it, the early Muslims called the political ruler of their state “Amir” (Commander/Prince), or “Amir al-Mu’minin” (Commander of the Faithful).

These two terms exclusively – „Mulk” (kingship) and “Amr” (command) – are the ones that appear in the Quran to signify the concept of ruling political authority. The term “Hukm,” which appears in the Quran and has been adopted by the proponents of the theory of “Hakimiyyah for Allah” (Hakimiyyah of Allah), has no connection whatsoever with politics or political authority. I believe that the advocates of this theory were not ignorant of this fact. They are undoubtedly highly knowledgeable about the Quranic words and terms in the context in which they appear. However, they deliberately ignored this because they found in this term and the phrases in which it appeared something they could interpret and philosophize ideologically to support their theory, especially since they could not find a single Quranic verse that explicitly or implicitly supports their theory.

To support their theory according to the logic of interpretation and philosophy, they borrowed from the Quran the phrase “The decision is only for Allah” (Quran 6:57), which linguistically suggests to the general Muslim public the essence of the divine Hakimiyyah theory and its legitimacy. They raised it as a political slogan because of its emotionally compelling force and popular appeal among Muslims, as it directly touches the emotions and loyalty of Muslims to Islam and appeals to the simple, superficial understanding of the general Muslim populace.

This is the slogan raised by the Kharijites who split from the army of Ali ibn Abi Talib—not in the political sense as a reference to political authority but rather in the sense of arbitration and settling disputes among Muslims when they disagree. They raised this slogan as a rejection of the arbitration process in the bloody conflict over the caliphate between Ali and Mu’awiyah. However, the political nature of the conflict gave this slogan a political character, prompting Ali ibn Abi Talib to say, “It is a word of truth by which falsehood is intended.” The falsehood Ali referred to here is the confiscation of Muslims’ right to govern on a civil political issue, under the pretext that the decision on this matter is a divine affair and not a human one.

This discussion covers the terms and their linguistic meanings.

The Concept of the Theory of Hakimiyyah: Its Essence, Foundations, Outcomes, and Consequences

But what about the essence of the theory, its foundations, outcomes, and consequences? How does it align with the principles and methodology of Islam in Hakimiyyah (in the political sense)? These details are most precisely found in Sayyid Qutb’s book Milestones (Ma’alim fi al-Tariq):

According to the theory, “Hakimiyyah (Hakimiyyah) belongs to Allah” means that political authority in human society is not a right of humans. It is a right of Allah alone and is one of the attributes of divinity. Indeed, it is one of the most exclusive attributes of divinity because divinity itself is Hakimiyyah. Religion, as he says, is the declaration of Allah’s sole divinity and lordship over all creation. Declaring Allah’s sole lordship over the world means a comprehensive revolution against human Hakimiyyah in all its forms, systems, and conditions. It means complete rebellion against any situation on earth where authority is vested in humans in any form. Any Hakimiyyah where authority is held by humans and sources of power are human-based amounts to deification of humans, making some people gods to others beside Allah. This declaration means reclaiming the usurped divine authority and returning it to Allah, expelling those who have usurped it by ruling over people with laws of their own making, positioning themselves as gods and the people as their slaves. This means dismantling the kingdom of humans to establish the kingdom of Allah on earth. Or, in Quranic terms, “He is the God in heaven and the God on earth,” and “The rule is only for Allah… It is a command that you worship none but Him… This is the right religion.”

This text is a clear and comprehensive statement that precisely outlines the general intellectual framework of the theory in all its intellectual dimensions, principles, and details. It is clearly dominated by a philosophical character, to the extent of immersing itself in the philosophy of religion generally, starting from the philosophy of terms and culminating in a political theory that contradicts the Islamic methodology of Hakimiyyah in the political sense.

To reach this theory, Sayyid Qutb started with the Islamic monotheistic slogan “There is no god but Allah” and worked to philosophize this slogan beyond its usual limits, making it the foundation and starting point for his theory. Islam, as he says, is first and foremost the acknowledgment of the doctrine “There is no god but Allah” in its true sense. Its true sense is the return of Hakimiyyah to Allah in all matters and the expulsion of those who usurp Allah’s authority by claiming this right for themselves. It means acknowledging this in their hearts, their rituals, their conditions, and their realities. Alternatively, it means attributing divinity and lordship solely to Allah, as well as authority, Hakimiyyah, and Hakimiyyah.

Regarding the slogan “There is no god but Allah” as the basis and starting point for the theory, we must return again to the issue of terms and concepts.

The Confusion and Distortion by Sayyid Qutb

It is clear that Sayyid Qutb deliberately confuses or mixes two concepts that human intellect has long differentiated and no longer accepts any overlap between them: the concept of divinity and the concept of political authority, or the concept of divinity and political Hakimiyyah. By this confusion, he adopts the term “Hakimiyyah” as synonymous with “divinity”: Islam is, according to him, Allah’s method for human life, a method based on attributing divinity solely to Allah, embodied in Hakimiyyah.

Since divine Hakimiyyah is considered absolute and encompasses the entire universe, including the human world, divine Hakimiyyah over the human realm covers all human matters without exception, including administrative and political matters and everything derived from them in human society. Consequently, political Hakimiyyah in human society is regarded as an integral part of Allah’s divinity, that is, part of His absolute Hakimiyyah. Thus, the true meaning of the slogan “There is no god but Allah” is to return Hakimiyyah to Allah, thereby giving the slogan a political dimension meaning “There is no ruler but Allah.” In this sense, the Arab understood it as Sayyid Qutb asserts.

Sayyid Qutb did not provide any evidence for his claims, despite the fact that the Arab context did not suggest this interpretation. The concept of divinity in the Arabic language is fundamentally different from the concept of a ruler. The Arabs did not have a state ruled by a divine sovereign like Pharaoh, or a vicegerent of the deity like Khosrow or Caesar, where the concept of divinity might overlap with that of a ruler as it did, for example, among the ancient Egyptians, Persians, or Romans.

Moreover, in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, the cradle of revelation and prophecy, there was no political state of any kind. Their social organization was comprised of scattered tribal entities, each forming a rudimentary administrative social unit governed by a tribal leader with limited administrative and political powers, constrained by inherited tribal customs and traditions. This tribal leader did not claim divinity in his leadership, so the Arab concept of divinity did not overlap with the concept of (ruler/tribal leader). The tribe’s members did not bow or prostrate to their leader as some primitive tribes did in other parts of the world at that time.

The slogan “There is no god but Allah,” which served as the foundation and impetus for Islamic advocacy, was purely religious and theological, with no political implications. It was a response to polytheism and the worship of multiple gods, which was the dominant belief in general human culture and specifically in the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabs, religiously, associated other deities with Allah as intermediaries, but did not associate their tribal leaders with divinity. The tribal leader had no share in this partnership in the Arab cultural context. Therefore, the concept of divinity could not merge or align with the concept of a ruler within the consciousness and culture of the Arab.

This was the Arab reality at that time and the awareness space into which the call to monotheism came with the principle “There is no god but Allah.” However, Sayyid Qutb’s logic of confusion, mingling, and distortion led him to follow his mentor Maududi’s approach of term philosophy, resulting in a conclusion that exists only in his philosophical imagination. He posited that polytheism has two intertwined aspects: a religious, metaphysical aspect and a civil, worldly, political aspect, both of which lead people away from Allah’s religion. This aligns with Maududi’s philosophy: people did not deny the principle of divinity or disbelieve in the existence of Allah entirely.

The Intricate Mix and Deception of Sayyid Qutb

Sayyid Qutb’s theory introduces a confusing mix between two concepts that the human intellect has long distinguished and no longer accepts any overlap between: the concept of divinity and the concept of political authority, or divine Hakimiyyah and political Hakimiyyah. By this confusion, he equates “Hakimiyyah” with “divinity”: Islam, as he presents it, is Allah’s method for human life, which is based on attributing divinity solely to Allah, embodied in Hakimiyyah.

Since divine Hakimiyyah is considered absolute and encompasses the entire universe, including the human realm, divine Hakimiyyah over humans is seen as covering all aspects of human affairs without exception, including administrative and political matters. Thus, political Hakimiyyah in human society is regarded as an integral part of Allah’s divinity, part of His absolute Hakimiyyah. Therefore, the true meaning of the slogan “There is no god but Allah” is to return Hakimiyyah to Allah, giving the slogan a political dimension meaning “There is no ruler but Allah.” In this sense, Sayyid Qutb asserts, the Arab understood it.

Sayyid Qutb did not provide any evidence for this claim, despite the fact that the Arab context did not support this interpretation. The concept of divinity in Arabic is fundamentally different from the concept of a ruler. The Arabs did not have a state ruled by a divine sovereign like Pharaoh or a representative of the deity like Khosrow or Caesar, where the concept of divinity might overlap with that of a ruler as it did among the ancient Egyptians, Persians, or Romans.

In the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, the cradle of revelation, there was no political state; the social organization was comprised of scattered tribal entities, each forming a rudimentary social unit governed by a tribal leader with limited powers, constrained by tribal customs. The tribal leader did not claim divinity, so the concept of divinity did not overlap with the concept of a ruler or tribal leader. The tribe’s members did not prostrate or bow to their leader as some primitive tribes did in other parts of the world.

The slogan “There is no god but Allah,” which served as the foundation of Islamic advocacy, had a purely religious, theological meaning, unrelated to politics. It was a response to polytheism and the worship of multiple gods, which was the prevalent belief in the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabs associated other deities with Allah, but did not equate their tribal leaders with divinity. Therefore, the concept of divinity could not merge with the concept of a ruler in the Arab consciousness.

Sayyid Qutb’s logic of mixing and confusion led him to adopt a philosophy similar to his mentor Maududi’s, which resulted in a conclusion that exists only in his philosophical imagination. He argued that polytheism has two intertwined aspects: a religious, metaphysical aspect and a civil, worldly, political aspect, both of which lead people away from Allah’s religion. This aligns with Maududi’s philosophy, which asserts that people did not deny divinity or Allah’s existence outright, but rather they were mistaken about the true nature of their Lord or associated other gods with Allah, either in belief and worship or in political Hakimiyyah. Both forms of association are considered polytheistic and lead people away from Allah’s religion.

The foundation of Qutb’s theory is based on a confusing mix of concepts and meanings, both within and beyond Quranic texts. He adopts a method of mixing and deception, blending divinity (godhood) with politics (rulership), and distorting the Quranic texts by attributing to them principles and final rules that they do not support. Qutb himself criticizes others for this practice, saying: “Those who cite Quranic texts out of context to support their view on jihad are mixing things up and misrepresenting the religion, imposing on the texts more principles and final rules than they can bear, treating each text as if it were a final, definitive rule in the religion.” Yet, he employs the same method of mixing and deception, extracting and misinterpreting Quranic texts to support his views.

When he could not find a definitive, clear verse in the Quran to support his theory, he resorted to extracting phrases and verses from their context to interpret them in a way that supports his position. He permits himself this approach while condemning it in others, saying: “Just as those who take Quranic texts out of context to cite them inappropriately.” He did exactly this, extracting some Quranic texts from their context to use them inappropriately, not just on this issue but throughout his book Milestones.

One of the most notable examples of this is his extraction of the verse: “The judgment is only Allah’s… He has commanded that you worship none but Him… That is the true religion” (Quran 12:40). He isolated this text from its context, presenting it as an independent, final verse to support his theory, even though it is part of verse 40 in Surah Yusuf.

Context and Meaning of the Verse “The Judgment is Only for Allah”

The verse in question, “The judgment is only for Allah… He has commanded that you worship none but Him… That is the true religion” (Quran 12:40), is part of a broader context in the Quran. It completes the preceding verse (39) and is part of a comprehensive discussion about the oneness of Allah in His lordship. In these verses, Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) addresses his fellow prisoners in the prison:

“O my two companions of the prison, are diverse lords better or Allah, the One, the Subduer? 39 What you worship besides Him are nothing but names you have named – you and your forefathers – for which Allah has not sent down any authority. The judgment is only for Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him. That is the true religion, but most people do not know.”

The meaning of this text, in this context, is clear to even the simplest readers of the Quran. The phrase “The judgment is only for Allah” in this discussion has no connection whatsoever to political Hakimiyyah or Hakimiyyah. It specifically means that the authority to judge the matter of multiple deities is solely Allah’s. Allah has judged the falseness of these various gods and has commanded that only He should be worshiped, affirming His singularity in divinity.

The phrase “The judgment is only for Allah” appears in various places in the Quran, and it is evident that wherever it appears, it has no relation to political Hakimiyyah or any political matters. For instance:

In Quran 12:67, spoken by Prophet Yaqub (Jacob): “And [Yaqub] said, ‘O my sons, do not enter from one gate, but enter from different gates. And I cannot avail you against Allah [by anything]. The judgment is only for Allah. Upon Him I have relied, and upon Him let the reliant rely.’”

In Quran 6:56-57: “Say, ‘Indeed, I am upon clear proof from my Lord, and you have denied Him. I do not have that for which you are impatient. The judgment is only for Allah. He relates the truth, and He is the best of judges.’”

Selective Use of Quranic Verses by Sayyid Qutb

Sayyid Qutb’s use of specific Quranic verses to support his theory of “the Hakimiyyah of Allah” involves selective quotation and misinterpretation of their contexts. Here’s how these verses were used and their actual meanings:

• Verse “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers” (Quran 5:44): This verse, along with similar ones, was used by Qutb to argue that political Hakimiyyah must belong solely to Allah. His followers and students continued to use this verse as a cornerstone of their argument, despite its broader context being different.
• Additional Verses:
  • Verse “Indeed, We sent down the Torah in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted themselves to Allah judged by it for those who were Jewish, and the rabbis and scholars by what they were entrusted of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof. So do not fear the people but fear Me. And do not exchange My signs for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the disbelievers” (Quran 5:44).
  • Verse “And We wrote upon them in it: ‘A soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds, retaliation. But whoever gives [up his right] as charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then they are the wrongdoers” (Quran 5:45).
  • Verse “Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then they are the defiantly disobedient” (Quran 5:47).

These three verses were presented by Qutb and his followers as strong evidence for their theory of Allah’s Hakimiyyah, but they were selectively quoted from verses 44, 45, and 47 of Surah Al-Ma’idah (The Table Spread). The broader context of these verses, beginning with verse 41 and ending with verse 50, deals with judicial matters and the administration of justice according to divine laws, and has no connection to political rule or Hakimiyyah.

Dr. Muhammad Imara commented on these verses after placing them in their proper context, explaining that these verses are mistakenly used by proponents of the theory of divine Hakimiyyah as supportive evidence. Instead, these verses actually contradict the theory they are intended to support.

Sayyid Qutb’s Theory:

Qutb constructed his theory of “Hakimiyyah of Allah” on a new interpretation of divinity, equating it with political Hakimiyyah. He argued that the Prophet Muhammad came to return people to the Hakimiyyah of Allah, asserting that just as Allah governs the universe, so should political authority be governed by the same divine principles.

Qutb’s approach involves conflating the concept of divinity with political Hakimiyyah, a method which he applied selectively and which ultimately diverges from the political methodology outlined in Islam. His interpretation extends the concept of divine Hakimiyyah into the realm of human political systems, which he posits must align with the divine Hakimiyyah of the cosmos.

Abul A’la Maududi (12 Rajab 1321 AH – 1 Dhu al-Qi’dah 1399 AH) (25 September 1903 – 22 September 1979) was an Islamic scholar, theorist, Muslim philosopher, jurist, historian, journalist, and activist. He was an active researcher in British India and later, after the partition, in Pakistan. Wilfred Cantwell Smith described him as “the most systematic thinker in modern Islam.” His numerous works, which covered a range of disciplines such as Quranic exegesis, Hadith, law, philosophy, and history, were written in Urdu but were later translated into English, Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Burmese, Malayalam, and many other languages.

Maududi sought to revive Islam as a comprehensive way of life, promoting what he understood as “true Islam.” He believed that Islam was essential for politics and that it was necessary to implement Islamic Sharia in all areas while preserving Islamic culture in the manner of the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. He advocated for abandoning what he considered the evils of secularism, nationalism, and socialism, which he viewed as influences of Western imperialism.

Sayyid Qutb: Sayyid Qutb Ibrahim Hussein Shadhili (October 9, 1906 – August 29, 1966) was an Egyptian writer, poet, literary critic, Islamic thinker, and theorist. He is the author of several works, including “In the Shade of the Qur’an,” “Milestones,” and “The Future Belongs to This Religion,” as well as several poems such as “My Brother, You Are Free,” “Strangers,” and “Speak to Me.” Qutb was influenced by the celebration of Americans over the assassination of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, which led him to join the organization upon his return to Egypt. He served as the head of the Department for the Promotion of Da’wah (Islamic advocacy) within the Brotherhood, editor-in-chief of the “Muslim Brotherhood” newspaper, and a member of its Guidance Bureau.

Qutb became famous for his Quranic exegesis, which he wrote in a literary style, and for his theories on the concept of Tawhid (Oneness of God) in Hakimiyyah, contemporary Jahiliyya (state of ignorance), and the formation of a “believing vanguard” to revive the Islamic society. This was to be done through replanting Islamic beliefs among the people and moral education, followed by striving to establish an Islamic state. These ideas were based on the doctrines of Hassan al-Banna and Abul A’la Maududi.

Sayyid Qutb was executed on August 29, 1966, under the charge of “establishing a secret armed organization of the disbanded Muslim Brotherhood and attempting to overthrow the government by force.” However, Qutb denied planning to overthrow the government and stated in his book “Why I Was Executed?” that this was part of a “plan to repel aggression” aimed at disabling the state from targeting the Islamic movement.

All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.