Shūrā

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shūrā ( Arabic شورى schura , DMG šūrā , also: muschāwara; maschūra) means advice; Advisory Board; Judgment advice. It is an important principle (qāʿida) of Islamic law . According to legal doctrine , advice, the convening of an advisory body in case law, as well as in state matters and political decisions are compulsory ( wāǧib ):

“It is incumbent on the ruler to consult with scholars about what he himself does not know and what seems unclear to him in religious (var. Secular) questions. (He has) also with the military commanders about the conduct of the war, with high-ranking personalities about questions of the common good, with officials, ministers and governors about the good and the leadership of the country. "

- al-Qurtubī : al-Ǧāmiʿ li-aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Volume 5, p. 380 (Beirut 2006) : al-mausūʿa al-fiqhiyya . (Kuwait 2004). Volume 26, p. 280

Those in the legal doctrine generally accepted view is that law schools across interpretation of Sura 3 , verse  159; however, it is unclear "what a historical situation the verse alludes to":

A shūrā in the Afghan town of Chleqdad Chan with US Air Force Captain Ryan Weld and Romanian soldiers

"... and advise them on the matter! And when you have made up your mind (first of all) then trust in God. "

- Translation: Rudi Paret

For the confirmation of the Koranic origin of the schūrā thought one also quotes sura 42 , verse 38:

"... who listen to their Lord, offer prayer, consult one another ..."

- Translation: Rudi Paret

Early Islamic History

The Islamic historiographers pass on several episodes of consultations between the Prophet Mohammed and his companions on questions of warfare, the treatment of prisoners of war, and everyday questions that have not been clarified in Revelation through God's verbal inspiration to the Prophet. Since the Prophet had recommended the counseling several times and it was practiced by him, the shūrā acquired its sunna character.

According to historiographical reports, the first comprehensive consultation took place in the run-up to the election of the third caliph ʿUṯmān ibn ʿAffān , at which, on the instructions of the fatally injured caliph ʿUmar, six prominent people from the circle of the Prophet 's companions formed an advisory committee ( ahl asch-shūrā ) around his To determine successors from their circle. The election of ʿUṯmān was first confirmed by the taking of the oath of the persons involved in the electoral college; in historiography it is called al-baiʿa al-ḫāṣṣa , the “special / basic homage”, which is then followed by the general public as al-baiʿa al-ʿāmma “the public homage”. Both Ibn Taimiya († 1328) and Ibn Ḫaldūn († 1406) consider the decision and homage of the prominent prophetic companions in this electoral college to be decisive in their historical analyzes.

However, Islamic historiography does not provide a uniform picture of the understanding of the shūrā practice in the early Islamic period. Criticism of the determining role played by the prominence of Medina is above all reports that apparently go back to compilations from circles of the Mawālī . Before the camel battle z. For example, the following address was addressed to the Medinese, in whose origins the traditionarian Yūnus ibn Yazīd al-Aylī († 775) from Egypt, who had a client relationship with the Umayyads , played a role:

“ Emigrants ! You were the first to obey God's Messenger, thereby gaining merit. Then others (also) accepted Islam like you. After the Messenger of God died, you swore allegiance to one of your ranks, but - by God - you did not consult us on this matter. Through his (i.e. Abu Bakr ) rule, God blessed all Muslims. Before his death he then chose his successor from among your group, but you did not discuss this with us. But we approved and gave our assent. When the commander of the believers (i.e. ʿUmar ibn al-Chattāb) died, he left the choice to six people; then you have chosen ʿUthmān and sworn allegiance to him without consulting us (mašūra). Then you accused this man of some things of murdering him without asking us about it and then swearing the oath of allegiance to ʿAlī - without consulting us about it. "

- at-Tabari : Taʾrīḫ : Muranyi (1973), 118

The picture conveyed here shows that the shūrā practice and exercise of power was closely linked to social priority and, in retrospect, was exposed to the criticism of the historians.

How important, at the same time but also controversial, the institution of Shura must have been when choosing'Uṯmāns show monographs in early historical tradition that were given to this particular event: the early historian al-Sha'bi († 721) wrote a paper entitled Kitāb asch-shūrā wa-maqtalʿUṯmān (Book on the Shūrā and the murder of ʿUʿmān), in which he describes both the choice and the murder of the caliph. Ibn an-Nadīm († 995 or 998) mentions a monograph by Abū Miḫnaf under the same title . His successor Al-Wāqidī († 823) wrote a similar work with the title Kitāb asch-shūrā (The Book of Choice [ʿUṯmāns]). These writings are only preserved in the form of excerpts in later historiographical literature - from at-Tabari , al-Baladhuri , Muhammad ibn Saʿd and others. In a papyrus fragment from the historical work of Ibn Isḥāq , details of the Shūrā are shown embellished with clearly Shiʿite tendencies.

Advisory body in case law

The institution of Shura came in legal history, especially in the official exercise of qadis particular importance. Advice was required in cases about which different, even controversial, scholarly opinions were known. Since the judge was "not always a trained legal scholar", the consultation became necessary. If there is already a justified judgment in the case law in the Koran, in the Sunna or by Idschmāʿ of the legal scholars, the advice is consequently invalid.

The legal instance of the judges' advice, which at the latest since ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥakam († 852) existed in al-Andalus , was composed of trained legal scholars who acted as legal advisors to the judge. The task of the college of lawyers (ahl asch-schūrā) was to combine judicial practice with generally accepted legal theory. Since the Qāḍī was not empowered to independently find and interpret the law , he had to agree with the advisory Shūrā members in his judgment . This role of the advisory scholar is thus comparable to the function of the mufti - with the difference, however, that the statements were only addressed to the judge in a special court case and not to the general public. In the case of controversial legal views of the advising lawyers, the judge had to endorse the opinion of the most learned member of the panel. (Christian Müller (1999), p. 253. Note 293)

Such court files, from which the function of the shūrā institution emerges, have been collected and incorporated into later legal works as thematically organized document collections. One of the oldest works of this genre, which has been completely preserved, was written by the Córdobesian scholar and court secretary Ibn Sahl († 1093). One of the many proceedings in which lawyers act as advisors to the judge is described as follows:

“In the presence of the chief judge, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, Muhammad ibn Kulaib, Muḥammad ibn Ziyād and Zakariyāʾ ibn Ḫumais testify that they know ʿAbd Allah ibn Ḥamdūn (personally), who makes wine, sells, drinks wine, stores and socializes with the rabble and mob. Then he (the judge) asked and Abū Ṣāliḥ, Ibn Lubāba and ʿUbaid Allāh ibn Yaḥyā “answered:

“We have - may God bestow you success - read and understand the testimonies. Eighty lashes are the penalty for drinking wine. He is warned about production and sale in such a way that he refrains from doing it and will no longer do it. As far as the gatherings of the rabble and mob (with him) are concerned, he is warned even more severely and imprisoned until he shows repentance and the certified testimonies against him, according to his right of appeal, are known. "

Shura is not to be confused with secular or liberal democracy and most likely corresponds to the practice of the “good” Roman adoptive emperors . A concession to modern conditions is the formal establishment of a permanent advisory body , usually called Majlis asch-Shura . The Islamic scholar John L. Esposito notes that in the main features of the term shūra, a democratic-electoral character can be recognized.

literature

  • The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Volume 9. New Edition. Brill, Leiden, p. 504 (shūrā); Bd. (Mashwara)
  • al-mausūʿa al-fiqhiyya. (Encyclopedia of Islamic Law). Volume 26. Kuwait 2004, p. 280ff.
  • Christian Müller: Legal practice in the city-state of Córdoba. On the law of society in a Malikite-Islamic legal tradition of the 5th / 11th Century. Brill, Leiden 1999. pp. 151ff.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See R. Paret: The Koran . Commentary and Concordance. P. 84. Kohlhammer. Stuttgart 1980
  2. ↑ Josef van Ess: Verbal inspiration? Language and revelation in classical Islamic theology. In: Stefan Wild (Ed.): The Qurʾan as Text . P. 177ff. Brill, Leiden 1996
  3. ↑ al-mausūʿa al-fiqhiyya . Kuwait 2004. Volume 26, pp. 280-282
  4. ↑ al-mausūʿa al-fiqhiyya . Kuwait 2004. Volume 26. P. 280
  5. ↑ The statement in the English WP that the election of the first caliph Abū Bakr was the first Shūrā Shura is wrong. In fact, there was then a "tumultuous meeting" in the Saqīfa Saqifah of Banī Sa'ida, but by a shura , the historians do not report
  6. ↑ Miklós Murányi : The comrades of the prophets in early Islamic history . Bonn 1973. pp. 119-121
  7. ^ Fuat Sezgin: History of Arabic literature. Volume 1. p. 519. Brill, Leiden 1967
  8. ↑ Muranyi (1973), pp. 118-119; see: Michael G. Morony in: Journal of the American Oriental Society (JAOS), Vol. 97 (1977), pp. 195-197
  9. ↑ Fuat Sezgin (1967), p. 277. There and in The Encyclopaedia of Islam . New Edition. Volume 9. S. 504 is the title to correct where mistakenly maqtal al-Husayn is
  10. ↑ Fihrist . Ed. Riḍā Taǧǧadud. Tehran 1971. p. 105; Albrecht Noth: Source-critical studies on topics, forms and tendencies of early Islamic historical tradition. Bonn 1973. pp. 34-35
  11. ↑ MJ Kister: Notes on an account of the shūrā appointed by ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. In: Journal of Semitic Studies (JSS) 9 (1964), pp. 320-326
  12. ↑ Christian Müller (1999), p. 151; al-mausūʿa al-fiqhiyya. (Kuwait 2004). Volume 26, p. 282
  13. ↑ faqīh muschāwar: Reinhart Dozy : Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes . 3. Edition. Brill, Leiden, GP Maisonneuve et Larose, Paris 1967. Vol. 1, p. 801 (sv š-wr)
  14. ^ Émile Tyan: Histoire de l'organization judicaire en pays d'Islam. Leiden 1960. pp. 230-236
  15. ↑ Qāḍī in Córdoba († 312 AH)
  16. ^ Citizens of the city of Cordoba
  17. ↑ ie three jurists of the Shūrā
  18. ↑ Muhammad Abdel-Wahhab Khallaf (ed.): Documentos sobre las ordenanzas del zoco en la España musulmana ( Waṯāʾiq fī šuʾūn al-ḥisba fī ʾl-Andalus . Cairo 1985. pp. 109–110 - Arabic text edition)
  19. ^  John L. Esposito: The Oxford Dictionary of Islam . Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-512558-4 , pp. 74 : “The compatibility and permissibility of elections in Islam are the subject of a long-running debate. The consensus of most modern scholars is that there exists no explicit sanction against elections in the Quran and Sunnah. Although the textual sources specify no particular mechanisms of governance, many point to the Quran's emphasis on shura (consultation) as evidence of the essentially democratic character of Islam. Indeed, the first caliphs or successors to the Prophet Muhammad were chosen from and by the leaders of the Muslim community through a form of electoral process. A number of more recent thinkers affirm the compatibility of Islam and elections "