Understanding the Conflict: Leadership and Legitimacy in Islamic History

The failure to establish a consultative mechanism for governance in Islamic history is the root of the conflicts surrounding the leadership of Muawiya and Yazid.

### The Challenge of Establishing Legitimate Government in Islamic History
* 👑 The discussion explores the fundamental challenge of establishing legitimate government in Islamic history, focusing on the lack of a practical mechanism to implement the Quranic principle of **"amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum"** (consultation among them in their affairs).
* 🕌 The text highlights the **absence of a representative council or electoral system** in Islamic governance, contrasting this with the development of **democratic institutions in the West**, which are now **widely adopted globally**.
* 🔍 The analysis emphasizes that the failure to establish a mechanism for resolving leadership disputes led to ongoing challenges in determining **legitimate rule**, even during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and later periods.
* ⚔ In the specific context of Muawiya's (ra) rule, it is acknowledged that his government was established de facto through military power rather than through consultation, raising questions about its **legitimacy according to Islamic principles**.
* 💭 The text suggests that the lack of a **clear mechanism for determining leadership** contributed to the perpetuation of **power struggles and disputes** within the Muslim community throughout history.
* 📚 The discussion criticizes the historical neglect of this fundamental problem in Islamic governance, noting that it was not **adequately addressed** in Islamic jurisprudence, political philosophy, or historical texts.
* 👥 The text argues that the **absence of a representative system for choosing leaders** created ongoing challenges in resolving disputes and determining legitimate authority in the Muslim world.
* 🕊 It concludes by highlighting the **complexity of historical events** such as the appointment of Yazid and the refusal of allegiance by Hussain (ra), framing them within the broader context of the **unresolved challenge of establishing legitimate government** in Islamic history.

Ameer Muawiya and Yazeed: A Unique Perspective to Understand the Conflict. [Ilyas Hasan]

Yesterday, we had started discussing certain important events and debates of the Muslim history. The two questions on the basis of which, today, the Muslims are divided into sects. They seem apparently at each other’s throats. There is a strong tendency to humiliate and degrade each other. People have been labelled into groups. Certain people are condemned as Nasibi, others are condemned as Rafidi. I want you to enlighten us about the approach through which we can satisfy both ourselves and our succeeding generations with respect to this historical tradition, steeped in conflict. The question haunts all of us: who was right? Was Muawiya (ra) right? Was Ali (ra) right? We talked about this question and you put forth your point of view. Let us take this conversation forward. There are two important questions.

Muawiya (ra) appointed Yazid as the caliph after himself. What was the religious, moral, and political status of this decision? And then, Hussain (ra) refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid. How do you see Syedna Hussain’s (ra) decision? Please enlighten us since these are very important and critical issues. Muslims are quite sensitive about these questions and have been divided into groups around them. What is your point of view? [Javed Ahmad Ghamidi] If you look closely at whatever I said earlier, you’ll find certain basic premises. Before proceeding, it is important to recapitulate those basic points. Whatever the government is, why do we need it all? I am a human being. I have accepted a religion. I am living my life in my own way. Why do we need to create a systematic collective order to regulate my life

and to make someone the ruler 
over me? I have stressed it many times before 
as well that the need for a state emerges from the fact that the human 
being has been endowed with a free will, and he misuses this freedom of will to 
create mischief in the society. The institution of the state has come 
into existence in order to stop this mischief and allow the society to 
live in peace. And whenever this institution is created, 
the first question that would arise would be this: who, among the men, 
could be appointed to rule? Who is the individual? Or, who are the group of individuals who 
would be given the responsibility of rulership? At this point, we must pause for a moment 
and understand that Allah did not create everyone the same. This has been discussed by the Quran
in Surah Az-Zukhruf. And it is conveyed that people are 
different with respect to their attitudes, abilities, tastes, etc.

We can also find pleasant and unpleasant qualities in people. Thus, if you pay attention, as soon as a person attains a certain threshold of consciousness, he endeavors to work on the qualities that he possesses, to take his latent potential towards actualization. As you are born into the world, you endeavor to realize your abilities – whether you want to earn money, or get ahead in the domain of knowledge, or get into a position of authority. Whatever goals you have chosen for yourself: an art, a skill, a science, or a profession, it produces an extraordinary energy within you. And you are ready to fight against the whole world in order to reach your goal. Now, the question is, if the desire is born in a person to become a great scholar in some field. Such a wish [ordinarily] doesn’t give rise to any issues. Or, if someone wishes to learn a certain skill.

This too doesn’t give rise to 
any issues. I strive in life. 
I earn wealth. I do business. 
I make an extraordinary invention. All these activities are appreciated,
seen positively. Although, certain rivalries and 
disagreements arise in these domains as well, and people try to put 
each other down. However, these things do not result 
in a massive conflict. As Allah has created these differences in 
people’s abilities, in a similar fashion, certain people have an inborn drive 
for leadership. In other words, some people are born 
with a certain courageous dispensation, the moment they reach the age of 
maturity... Just as someone is born with scholarly 
or poetic capabilities, these capabilities manifest in 
the person’s life. These latent capacities give rise to an 
internal movement such that the person wants to realize his potential. At times, one even risks his life in 
such an endeavor. Exactly the same thing happens with 
those people who are born with

a drive for leadership. In other words, they have the latent 
capability for leadership. Or, they grow up within a milieu of 
leadership. Or they have such a rank in their clan,
or their network. Or, they find themselves in such 
circumstances that produce the drive for leadership within them. Or, they possess the quality or spirit
of courage in their interiority that drives them to seek the leadership 
of their people. Were it to be the case that in every age, 
Allah would send only one such person, there wouldn’t be any trouble. Similarly, I had argued that if Allah 
Himself appoints someone as the leader, just like He Himself appoints 
His Prophets. Whether people accept or not, there 
is no question of a dispute in such a case. When it comes to the question of 
leadership, it is not just one or two, or a few people who have this capability. At times, there may be tens or hundreds 
of people within a nation who possess

the capability, as well as the will and desire. And they come forward with the understanding that they have to serve the nation. And that Allah has bestowed them with the capacity to lead, and this capacity must be manifested. Such a situation would develop, right? When such a scenario would develop, what would be the result? It would create a power struggle. It would result in dispute and contestation. And if the scenario struggle and contestation is created, then how would it be settled? This is the basic problem that people neglect while talking about government. In other words, there are multiple dimensions to this problem that must necessarily be kept in mind. Say, the individual’s own desire for power has become very strong. He believes himself to be better. He believes he can provide better leadership to the people. He believes he can take the nation forward. And that the opponents are no match to him in prestige and capability.

Their thinking style and scheme of 
governance are totally defective. He believes that only he can really serve 
the people. In reality, this is the problem whose 
solution has, in principle, has been clarified by Allah. Allah says that people should resolve the 
dispute over rulership through mutual consultation. 
Why did I say all this? Because, in our society when the religious
mind is confronted with this problem, it conceives of it as a struggle between 
truth and falsehood. It is not a decision about truth 
or falsehood. The verdicts of truth and falsehood 
pertain to the domains of ideas and ideologies. In those cases, you form your opinion 
on the basis of arguments. In the domain of ideas, even if the 
whole world disagrees with you, you mustn’t bother about it. In this case, however, the situation is 
that there are a number of individuals who are all supported by a large 
number of people.

Maybe one has a greater following, and another has slightly less. And all of them believe themselves to have the right and the capability to lead the nation. They possess both the courage as well as the capabilities to lead. Now, since everyone cannot be elected to be the ruler, how do we decide between them? Everyone cannot be given the responsibility to rule. So, how to resolve such disputes? This is the fundamental problem, and unless we grasp it, all such disputes would lead one to adopt extremist positions. This is the basic problem that has to be solved. And I mentioned that the solution that Allah has communicated in this matter was: amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum. In other words, within the whole community of Muslims that has come into existence, everyone – without any discrimination – has been given the right to come together and decide upon a leader. Further, I had suggested that if it was a matter of just ten or fifteen people.

they could easily be arranged to 
come together. However, how do we seek people’s 
consultation, if we have to choose the ruler of 
a large nation? This is the [logistical] problem that gave
rise to the idea that, in the beginning, the leadership of different sections of 
the populations should be selected. In other words, first all those 
individuals should come forward who are considered to be the leaders 
by their tribe, province, race, ethnicity, or ideological group. 
This should be specified. With respect to this, I had suggested that
the principle of amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum cannot be 
practiced on the ground unless a house of representatives comes 
into existence. In other words, the principle cannot be 
practiced in the context of a large nation. 
It can be practiced among a few people. As I mentioned, courageous people... Do not assume if a few courageous 
people are righteous and

upright and pious, all problems would 
go away. Everyone else would step back.
This doesn't happen. Near the end of his life, Omar (ra) said, 
‘When I had to give my opinion about the Caliph, there was a person 
living among us, about whom it was almost impossible for anyone to 
disagree.’ In other words, even if there was 
disagreement, it would be confined to a few people. For this, Omar’s (ra) words are: 
tuk’ta ul aa'naaki’lai. ‘Heads would bow down in front 
of him.’ Sometimes, within a group, an individual 
enjoys such a stature. Omar (ra) said, ‘As I am leaving the world,
there is no longer anyone who enjoys such a stature.’ 
It is an extremely important point. ‘There is not a single person who enjoys 
such a stature now.’ This is the point I directed your 
attention towards that the numbers

of courageous people, or leaders, 
or those deserving to be the leaders, or those backed by large numbers 
of people increased substantially. What should be done now? There would necessarily be disputes 
because everyone among them believes that he can serve the people 
better than the others. And how are you going to decide who 
among this group of leaders is supported by a greater number of 
people and who is supported by a lesser 
number of people? You must have seen, in our country, in 
a single constituency, twenty people join the electoral fray 
and all of them claim to be eligible for the leadership of the people. And, ask any one of them about 
his support base. [Hassan] The whole lot! [Ghamidi] He would reply that the 
whole constituency supports only him. He would say that everyone is an 
advocate for his leadership. There is an apocryphal story that 
Lord Wavell invited all the great Muslim leaders of British India, 
especially

the opponents of Quaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He asked them about their following among the masses, since they stood in disagreement with Jinnah. He took a pen and started writing down the numbers the leaders gave him. At that point, the population of Muslims in the subcontinent would have been around 10 crores. As everyone gave their number of supporters, Wavell retorted: The total number of Muslims has already been crossed, so who is following Mr. Jinnah? In reality, it is a manifestation of the human nature. In this respect, Omar (ra) advised the committee he appointed: You are six people. All the disagreements are going to be between the six of you. Or between your followers. If there is a dispute about leadership, you’ll have to settle it. Therefore, you must decide among yourselves. In other words, reach a mutual consensus. This is what Omar (ra) said.

The reason was to prevent the disagreements among the leaders from diffusing into the masses of their followers or the groups whose confidence they held. Thus, he made a strategy based on the situation at the time and, especially, based on the nature of the community the Prophet (pbuh) had constituted in Medina. So, I want to tell you that we must first understand this basic problem. For this reason, I mentioned when you look at the historical debate about this issue, when you read all the books, you’ll find that historical events are analyzed, philosophies are peddled, the verdicts of truth and falsehood are handed down, but the basic problem is not discussed whether or not there was disagreement. If the situation is such that there is no disagreement, there is an individual who enjoys everyone else’s confidence. There is a single voice which resounds from the east to the west. However, if there was disagreement

When the people disagree among 
themselves. If there is a disagreement, if there is a 
dispute within the leadership, then if the basis of decision-making is 
amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum, if the basis of decision-making is 
people’s opinion, then the first question would be how 
to seek people’s opinion? In today’s age, elections take place. 
It was not possible in that era. So, I argued that it was important that 
a house of representatives would come into existence. Muslims could never develop an 
institution like the house of representatives. In fact, even its conceptualization 
was not fully accomplished. The problem didn’t raise its ugly 
head immediately after the Prophet (pbuh) because people 
had migrated to Medina and their whole leadership was 
present there. And, among them, the leaders of the 
Muslims of the time were quite prominent. But such an arrangement could 
not last long. For this reason, a fixed process and a 
constitution is necessary.

to resolve such disputes. It is possible such a constitution 
would be based on tribal lines, or it may take a temporally 
specific shape. For example, you might have heard 
of Loya Jirga in Afghanistan. In other words, a house of representatives
is produced by a tradition, or a council has developed in the 
manner that parliaments nowadays develop out of elections, or a council was produced by 
the tribal system. However, it is important that the 
house of representatives has the confidence of the whole nation. 
The people must accept it as legitimate. In other words, the people must accept 
the principle that the leader must be chosen from the house of representatives. 
This condition is necessary. In our history, it could not be 
accomplished in the age of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, nor could it happen in 
Muawiya’s (ra) reign. It did not happen in the later 
periods as well.

Now, how could we blame any single person for something that could not be accomplished in the whole history of Muslims? It can be argued that once the people who were governing... Excuse me. It can be argued that once the people who were governing, established a hereditary system, they no longer had any incentive to think about it. I say that the jurists, hadith scholars, intellectuals, theologians, philosophers. Even they did not think about the problem either. There is not one incident in the whole Muslim history when the problem was discussed with the seriousness it merited because without a solution to this problem, the principle of amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum is impracticable. In other words, in itself, the principle is beautiful, but how would it be put into practice? Tell me, did the Ottomans figure out a way to put it in practice? Did the Umayyads or the Abbasids find a way to practice this principle?

Did the Fatimids? The Mughal government was established 
in the subcontinent. Did they practice it? Was such a model discussed in the 
books somewhere? There are books pertaining to the 
government like Al-Mawardi’s Al Ahkam al-Sultaniyya.
You can show me if it is mentioned. The corpus of our jurisprudence is 
existent as well. The principle that government should be 
formed through the consultation of people has been mentioned in it. But, in order to make people’s opinion 
decisive, we need modes of conflict-resolution. It is not a discussion of truth 
and falsehood. Rather, it seeks a basis for 
decision-making between different claimants to the leadership. The point is to be able to establish who 
among the contenders has the greatest number of people 
behind him. Obviously, this would be the method 
of amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum. Thus, how do we decide it? 
By estimating the crowd size?

In Pakistan, our religious scholars can pull bigger crowds than our political leaders. You’ll find countless people if they are gathered in one place. The religious leaders also enjoy a great street power. However, do the election results correspond with the size of public gatherings? Can we, thus, make the size of crowds the criterion for selecting the ruler? So, what is the thing on the basis of which we must decide? I want to emphasize we cannot reproach any single individual for this [collective] failure. The reason is, if you argue that a certain individual took reigns of government and deliberately chose to ignore this principle because of mal-intent. Let’s suppose such a thing for a moment. In that case, the others should have brought forth the proposal of a council or representatives? Did this idea of council of representatives ever come up in the dispute between Ali (ra) and Muawiya (ra)?

Did any one of them propose it? Did anyone suggest, Let us bring about 
a council of representatives and then it would be definitively decided 
who is really followed by the people? Who do they support? Such a topic was never even discussed. On the contrary, if you are familiar with 
the history of the West, you’ll find the first traces of this 
system in ancient Greece as well as in the Roman Empire. In those civilizations, the philosophers 
discussed this problem from the very first day, and it kept evolving gradually. Among whom was the Magna Carta 
signed? It was an agreement between the
House of Lords and the King. Therefore, a House of Lords existed 
in England at the time. Whatever the basis of their appointment, 
people looked up to them for the potential leadership 
of their community. If you look at the history of democracy, 
the House of Commons developed and slowly gathered power like 
the House of Lords.

What were the contents of Magna Carta? It didn’t contain any human rights or 
the basic principles of democracy. In reality, it curtailed certain powers 
of the King and enhanced certain privileges of the Lords. In reality, as this basic principle moved 
forward, it took the shape of the democracy that we see today. I have repeatedly emphasized the 
fact that we, the Muslims, couldn’t even invent the telephone 
or the internet or the airplane. Not only this, we couldn’t even invent the
mechanism to practice on this earth the eternal Quranic principle of 
amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum. It must be accepted that we 
couldn’t do it. Instead of reproaching one or two 
people for it, we must first understand this 
basic reality. The principle was put in practice 
in the West. And not only that, they also invented 
its rules and norms to the point that those mechanisms of elections were 
invented that are deployed for

conflict-resolution everywhere today. You too say with confidence that 
elections must be conducted. What was the first problem we faced 
when our country was established? It was the constitution. 
What is a constitution? It is such a document wherein the 
whole nation agrees upon things like the modality of transfer of power, 
conflict-resolution mechanisms between the leadership, etc. These are the things you include
in a constitution, right? This process reached its apogee 
in the West. From there, it came to our societies. And now the Muslim countries where 
there are elections and parliaments and the rest of it, they are all indebted 
to the West for these ideas. Just as, right now, we are indebted to 
the West for the media we use to broadcast our message to the 
whole world. In this sense, these inventions are the 
heritage of humanity. There is no need to divide them between 
the East and the West.

And wherever they come from – 
al hikmat’u za’al’latul muumin – they must be accepted. My objective for stating this at this 
point is that we do not find even the traces of such institutions in 
our history. We do not find it in any branch of 
knowledge: neither in kalam theology, nor in 
the Sufi thought, nor in jurisprudence, or among the experts in the 
social sciences. Who is the greatest social scientist in
Islamic history? Ibn Khaldun. Show me this 
discussion in his masterpiece, Al Muqaddima. I am referring to the method. 
All the principles are discussed. People talked about the principles. For instance, the fundamental argument 
of Al Muqadimmah is that the group consciousness (asabiyyah) is 
decisive in state formation. Alright, the group feeling is decisive,
but what if there is a dispute between different 'group feelings'?

What, then, would be the decisive factor? 
Such a conflict would invariably arise. This, therefore, is the basic problem 
that Muawiya (ra) as well could not find a solution to. He ruled for almost a quarter 
of a century. We have already discussed how he 
reached to the seat of the government. However, he did govern, and he managed to create a peaceful 
atmosphere throughout the empire. Jihad was also restarted. He also consolidated the new 
Muslim empire. Insofar as Muawiya’s (ra) governance 
is concerned, there can only be a few things that 
one can criticize. He governed in an extraordinary manner. In fact, he can be considered among 
the greatest statesmen of the world. Despite all that, there was no 
headway in this matter. In fact, nobody even paid attention 
to the matter. Since a consultative mechanism was 
not instituted, now the question was how to carry out
the transfer of power?

Muawiya (ra) ascended to the throne. 
How he did so, I have stated that he did not follow 
the principle of amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum
in becoming the ruler. I said that the swords were unsheathed. And I said that once it was unsheathed, 
the sword itself settled the matter. And I also stated that, from the point 
of view of Islam, the only de jure legitimate government 
is the one that is established through the will of the people. Muawiya’s (ra) government was 
established de facto. Once it was de facto established, people
were confronted with the question, whether the civil war should be 
allowed to continue? In other words, if there is no mechanism 
of conflict-resolution and hegemony has been established by the force of 
arms, should it be accepted now? I argued that the Companions made the 
right choice that there was no other

choice but to give in to this de facto rule. In fact, not only the Companions, Hassan (ra) too made the same choice, and abdicated in Muawiya’s (ra) favor. And Muawiya’s (ra) government was established. There is no question of truth and falsehood here. I have made it clear that the right thing to do would have been to base the government on the principle of amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum. This is the reason we are told that any government that is based on this principle would be a legitimate government. And the government that deviates from this principle loses its legitimacy, even if it is de facto accepted. And why is it accepted? Because if the government has established its order, it can then be dislodged only through a civil war. In our religion and our law, human life is sacred.

It needed to be spelled out in detail. Therefore, before answering your specific 
questions, it is important to grasp firmly the basic 
problem that the Muslims did not succeed in finding a method to put the aforementioned principle in 
practice. Neither the early Muslims, nor those 
who came later. They did not succeed in their twelve 
centuries of history. And there wasn’t even a headway to spell 
out its fundamental modalities. The same problem persisted in Muawiya’s 
(ra) age as well. It has persisted during the time of the 
Rightly Guided Caliphs as well. A house of representatives could not 
be established in such a large empire. As Muawiya (ra) was about to pass away, 
the question remained: how would the transfer of power 
take place now? We shall discuss it further in the 
next session. [Ilyas] Ghamidi Sahab, it is an extremely 
important topic. You discussed it in detail.

And we shall continue the process of learning from you. The two questions that when Muawiya (ra) appointed Yazid as his successor, what was the religious, political, and moral status of his decision? And then, as Hussain (ra) refused allegiance to Yazid, how do you see it? In connection with the preface you just sketched for us, there are numerous other questions beyond the two aforementioned ones. For instance, the basis on which the dispute arose between Muawiya (ra) and Ali (ra), that is, the question of Uthman’s (ra) killers, what happened to them during Muawiya’s (ra) reign? If it was an illegitimate government, should we discuss it in the same way we usually discuss other illegitimate governments? And, in the whole controversy, what is the role of the fact that it led to the

spilling of the blood of the Prophet’s 
(pbuh) grandchild? There are numerous topics and questions 
that we shall put forth to you, one by one. Our time is up for today. 
We shall be back. Thanks a lot for your time! [Ghamidi] Thank you very much.

Hazrat Ali (ra) aur Ameer Muawiya (ra) Ka Ikhtilaf - Part 2 - Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Ghamidi Center Of Islamic Learning

The Muslim community is divided over the legacies of Muawiya and Yazid, leading to ongoing conflict and division.

The appointment of Yazid as the caliph after Muawiya raises questions about religious, moral, and political implications, causing significant debate within the Muslim world.

Additionally, Hussain's refusal to pledge allegiance to Yazid is a critical issue, with differing perspectives on the righteousness of his decision, further contributing to the division among Muslims.

People's innate abilities and desires lead to a natural drive for leadership, sometimes resulting in rivalry and power struggles.

This innate drive, supported by a large number of people, can lead to disputes and contestation, requiring resolution through mutual consultation, as advised by Allah.

The quest for leadership is not a simple struggle between truth and falsehood, but a complex issue that must be carefully considered in society.

The Process of Selecting a Leader According to Islamic Principles

According to Islamic principles, the selection of a leader should involve the entire Muslim community without discrimination.

The practice of consultation (shuraa) is suitable for a small group but requires a representative body for a large nation.

In the context of a large group of potential leaders, the challenge lies in determining who has the most support, often leading to disputes and claims of sole support.

The Importance of Reaching Consensus in Leadership

During a historical debate, the issue of leadership disagreement is often analyzed, but the crucial problem of whether there is a consensus is overlooked.

The speaker argues that in case of leadership disagreement, a house of representatives or a similar institution is crucial for resolving disputes, based on the example of the Prophet's time in Medina.

The establishment of a legitimate house of representatives, accepted by the people, is essential for choosing a leader and resolving leadership disputes, but this was not accomplished in early Islamic history.

The Historical Failure of Implementing the Principle of "Amru'hum Shuraa Bayna'hum" in Muslim Governance

The hereditary system and lack of discussion among Muslim rulers and scholars have prevented the practical implementation of "Amru'hum Shuraa Bayna'hum.

" The criteria for decision-making and the concept of a council of representatives were never seriously considered in Muslim history, unlike in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire.

In contrast, Western history shows early discussions and evolution of the governance system, with the establishment of the House of Lords and the development of the House of Commons in England.

The Impact of the Magna Carta on Democracy Development

The Magna Carta did not initially include human rights or democratic principles, but it did limit the King's powers and elevate the Lords' privileges.

The document's principles eventually influenced the development of democracy, which became a cornerstone of Western societies.

The ideas of constitution, power transfer, and conflict resolution, which are now prevalent in Muslim countries, are indebted to the West's influence and heritage of humanity.

Muawiya's Governance and the Question of Legitimacy

Muawiya ruled the Muslim empire for almost 25 years, bringing a peaceful atmosphere and restarting Jihad.

Despite being considered a great statesman, his ascension to power and lack of a consultative mechanism raised questions of legitimacy.

The government's establishment through force rather than the will of the people led to a debate on whether to accept this de facto rule, ultimately challenging the principle of amru’hum shuraa bayna’hum in Islamic governance.

The Failure to Establish a House of Representatives in Early Muslim History

The early Muslims struggled to put into practice the principle of establishing a house of representatives for twelve centuries.

This challenge persisted during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and was still unresolved during Muawiya's reign.

The appointment of Yazid as his successor and Hussain's refusal to allegiance raised questions about the religious, political, and moral implications of the decision.