The Essence of Obedience
Now consider the first expression of worship: obedience. Obedience and worship are not two entirely separate things. Rather, this is an analytical distinction, meant to clarify the difference between two types of commands. In the same way, jurists classify certain rulings as al-ahkam al-taabbudiyya (devotional rulings) in order to distinguish them from rulings related to ethics and social dealings. Yet in truth, ethics and social dealings are also, in a sense, acts of worship and are not separate from it.
Obedience is categorized into two primary types: individual and collective. Individual Obedience refers to obeying God in matters related to a person’s private life. It includes all commands related to ethics and social dealings. Everything that a person can do on their own and every decision they make in personal matters, if they follow divine guidance, constitutes individual obedience. It is impermissible for a Muslim to deviate from a command of God in their personal matters if they know it applies to them and are able to fulfill it. The Quran says:
“It is not fitting for a believing man or woman to exercise any choice in his or her own affairs once God and His Messenger have reached a decision upon them. Anyone who disobeys God and His Messenger is in manifest error. (Quran, 33:36)
This individual obedience is a mandatory right that Allah has over every person. No one can be considered a true servant in God’s sight if they do not follow the commands given to them by God in their daily life, according to their circumstances and responsibilities. If ‘ibadah (worship) reflects a person’s inner submission, ita‘ah (obedience) is about surrendering one’s outward actions to God. A believer’s external life should be completely aligned with God’s will. It is crucial for every believing man and woman, in all aspects of their lives, to fully obey God, even in simple matters like eating and drinking, by adhering to His commands. There is a verse in the Quran: “O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.” (2:172)
The set of commandments I have grouped under the title “obedience” includes a second category, which we can call collective commandments. These are commands whose enforcement does not rely solely on an individual’s will; they can only be carried out when the entire society is ready to support them. This is why such commandments were revealed only after believers had established a political organization among themselves, giving them the power to enforce social laws with authority. The collective commandments of Shariah are aimed at an empowered Muslim society, not isolated individual believers.
Throughout the history of the Children of Israel, we see that while they were in Egypt, they were not given the legal commandments of the Torah. However, once they left Egypt and became a free and empowered community, Allah immediately sent down the laws. The same pattern was followed in Arabia. In Makkah, only the parts of Shariah that were individually required of each believer and had to be maintained under all circumstances were revealed initially. The rest of the Shariah was revealed gradually as circumstances permitted. These commandments were given later, once the believers had gained control over a land.
The order in which the commandments were revealed shows that, under normal circumstances, the essential part of faith for believers is limited to what was revealed before the period of political authority. Beyond this, following additional commandments becomes mandatory only when they have gained power and authority, which is necessary to enforce these laws.
After reading my statements, a gentleman responded with strong criticism, stating:
“We cannot compare ourselves to the Muslims of the Makkan period. If a Muslim in Makkah engaged in usury, married a polytheist, did not stone an adulterer, or did not cut off the hand of a thief, they would not be blamed because no command on these matters had yet been revealed. Today, however, the situation is completely different. It is no longer feasible for someone to dismiss issues like usury, gambling, alcohol, or marriage with polytheists by labelling them as Madinan commandments. Nor can they justify ignoring the collective commandments of religion by citing a lack of practical implementation.”
My response is that this criticism merges two different types of commandments, which causes a misunderstanding.
Regarding the personal prohibitions of usury, gambling, and alcohol, the fact that these prohibitions were revealed in their complete form in Madinah does not mean they were irrelevant in Makkah or similar circumstances. Instead, this gradual revelation was due to the wisdom of tadreej fil-ahkam (gradual implementation of commandments), as explained in the hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith No. 4993), narrated by Aisha (R.A.), the wife of the Prophet (e) and one of the foremost scholars among the early Muslims. Had this gradual approach not been necessary, these commands would have been fully revealed in Makkah because their fulfillment does not require authority; they are individually binding on every Muslim.
In contrast, for commands such as “whip the adulterer” or “cut off the hand of the thief,” having authority is crucial for their enforcement. These commands could only be issued and carried out in Madinah, where Muslims had established authority. Such commands were never given to any community before they gained authority, nor can they be enforced without such authority.
In other words, the commandments of the first type were revealed in Madinah simply because of the sequence of events (afterward), while the revelation of political and social commands in Madinah indicates that they were dependent on Muslims attaining authority.
The difference between the two types of commandments is clearer because the first type started to be revealed before the period of authority and was later completed, while the second type was not revealed until the believers achieved independence and authority.
The gradual unveiling of Shariah commandments, aligned with their expanding practical scope, clearly shows that these commandments are not always obligatory but depend on specific circumstances. Their relevance is always based on the actual conditions of the individual or group they are meant for. In practice, commandments related to social and community issues are only required to be fulfilled by a group of believers who can enforce them. Believers with limited authority are not commanded to impose religious laws on society or the nation.
The fulfillment of commandments is a practical requirement, and a practical requirement can only be enforced on those who have already committed to it and to the extent that it is possible for them. Shariah’s clear principle, as mentioned in the Quran, is:
“Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.” (Quran, 2:286)
Therefore, believers cannot be given commandments they are unable to fulfill. If someone explains the details of religious commandments and claims that believers are always responsible for following the entire list of these commandments while living on earth, it would be as unreasonable as someone referring to zakat laws and saying that every Muslim is responsible for acquiring wealth in all categories so they can meet all the zakat requirements.
It becomes clear that the detailed requirements of religion are not universally obligatory but depend on circumstances. As the influence of believers increases, so do the demands of religion. When an individual becomes a believer, only the personal aspects of faith are required of them, and their personal life becomes the arena where they enact divine guidance. When believers form a family or small group, then the family or group will be guided according to its sphere of influence. When believers reach the status of an empowered society, then the entire society is obligated to fully follow all commandments from God related to communal matters.
Since societal implementation is impossible without authority, when a society of believers is addressed by these commandments, it means they must establish political leadership over themselves. Under this leadership, they should organize their collective life and enforce all the laws of Shariah.
Some people argue that “seeking power directly is not a religious duty for the followers of Islam. Rather, power is a reward granted by Allah to the believers as a result of their sincere adherence to religion.” Supporters of this interpretation strongly criticize this view. They list Islam’s political and social commandments and question how these could be fulfilled if gaining government power were not essential. However, both sides are mistaken in this debate.
The correct understanding is that it is the duty of an independent Muslim society to establish a political system based on Islam among themselves, as Shariah cannot be implemented on a societal level without such a system. But where Muslims are not in such a position, the program that Islam gives them for their external life is not the establishment of political leadership, but calling people to awareness of God’s creation plan and giving glad tidings. In carrying out this mission, whatever stages may arise, they should remain fully steadfast in it.
In the first case, establishing a government is the duty of the believers. In the second case, gaining government is a reward from God.
The issue of appointing an imam (a ruler or head of state) relates to this final situation, which is unanimously considered obligatory. For example, here are a few references:
Nasb al-imam ‘indana wajib (Sharh al-Mawaqif, al-Jurjani, Vol. 8, p. 376). That is, it is obligatory for Muslims to appoint a ruler over themselves.
La budda lil-ummah min imamin (Sharh al-Maqasid, al-Taftazani, Vol. 5, p. 233). That is, the Muslim community must have a ruler.
Al-muslimuna la budda lahum min imamin (al-‘Aqa’id al-Nasafiyyah with commentary by al-Taftazani, p. 467). That is, Muslims necessarily need a ruler.
The importance of this matter is such that no book of fiqh (jurisprudence) or ‘aqa’id (creed) omits mentioning it. Aside from a now-extinct sect among the Khawarij called the “Najdat,” no one has disagreed on this point. Ibn Hazm, Abu Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Andalusi, a well-known Muslim scholar of the 11th century, writes:
Ittafaqa jami‘ ahl al-sunnah wa jami‘ al-murji’ah wa jami‘ al-shi‘ah wa jami’ al-khawarij ‘ala wujub al-imamah, hasha al-najdat mina al-khawarij (al-Fasl fi al-Milal by Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4, p. 72).
That is, all the Sunnis, the Murji’ah, the Shi‘ah, and all the Khawarij except the Najdat, a subgroup of the Khawarij, among them agree that the institution of leadership (imamah, i.e., rulership) is obligatory.
In this matter, the main difference lies in how it is perceived: Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah consider it obligatory based on samaa‘ (revelation), meaning a Shariah requirement, while some sects, such as the Zaydiyyah and the Mu‘tazilah, see it as obligatory through reason (‘aql). However, the issue of appointing a political imam (leader) specifically concerns a Muslim community that has a stable and independent collective identity, allowing them to establish their own political structure. There is no question of appointing a political leader for scattered and divided Muslims. In other words, this is not an absolute obligation; rather, it applies to a group of Muslims with a clear social identity. For such a group, it is necessary to organize their society based on religious principles, appoint a political leader, and live under their guidance. Political leadership reflects a group’s collective authority and can only exist where that authority is present. When such authority is lacking, there can be no political leadership, nor can obligations related to it be enforced.
One might wonder how we could attain this status of a free and unified group if we don’t already have it. However, this question comes from a misunderstanding. If the Islamic mission were primarily about establishing a divine government on earth, then, in all cases, the main focus would be on pursuing political change, making it the goal of the struggle and using all possible strategies to achieve it. But, as previous discussions have shown, political change is not sought as an end in itself; rather, it falls within the broader obedience to commandments based on circumstances. Just as financial commandments do not mean that every Muslim’s mission is to become wealthy to fulfill financial commandments, these laws only explain how a property owner or wealthy person should use their assets. Similarly, political commandments indicate that Muslims who hold political and governmental power should exercise it in a way that aligns with divine intent.
All commands of obedience offer guidance on the proper use of authority and, therefore, only apply to individuals who genuinely hold such authority.
In normal circumstances, what is required is that the believers, by making themselves devoted and obedient to Allah, the Lord of all worlds, should launch the mission of acquainting people with Allah. They should strive to make those who are distant from God aware of His plan of creation. This mission must continue in every situation in its most effective form. That is why the Quran does not present caliphate and government as the goal of the struggle to make people aware of God’s plan of creation, but rather as a promise and a reward.
