Sovereignty in the concept of theocratic theory
Before discussing the theocratic theory, it is necessary to take one step back and clarify the concept of sovereignty enjoyed by any state in the world and what it means for a state to possess it.
The sovereignty enjoyed and exclusively held by any state in the world lies in the fact that the supreme authority must belong to that state in all circumstances, so that no other authority or body stands above it. Accordingly, sovereignty rises above everyone as a supreme commanding authority. Sovereignty is inherently attached to the state, and this is what distinguishes it from other non-political authorities.
It is worth noting that sovereignty, which is closely connected to the state, is not a naturally existing and independent physical thing. Rather, it is a concept that people put into practice, and through that practice sovereignty is generated. This creates equality among all individuals as a result of their respect for the authority that grants the state the power of absolute command and prohibition.
Sovereignty has two aspects: an internal aspect, which means that the state exercises its authority over the entire territory of the state; and an external aspect, which means that the state is not subject to any other foreign state and therefore enjoys sufficient independence, completely removed from subordination to another state.
As for the source of sovereignty, jurists and political philosophers have differed in determining its source and who possesses it, as follows:
1) Theocratic theories.
2) The theory of national sovereignty.
I will now proceed to the theocratic theory, which is the subject of my research paper.
The theocratic, or religious, theory traces the origin and source of sovereignty back to Almighty God, considering Him alone, glorified and exalted, as the holder of sovereignty and the possessor of commanding authority.
Although the theocratic theories agree that sovereignty belongs to Almighty God alone, they differ in certain details. The interpretations of religious sovereignty in the theocratic theories have varied and may be summarized in three forms:
1) The Theory of the Divine Nature of Rulers: This theory is based on attributing a divine nature to rulers. According to this theory, the ruler is a god living among human beings and governing them; in other words, he is God Himself on earth. This approach was widespread during the era of the Pharaonic kingdoms and the Roman and Greek empires, and the last example of it was the status granted to the emperors of Japan until 1947. This theory may be summarized as requiring individuals to sanctify the ruler while eliminating any objection to or discussion of his authority, thereby applying the idea of deification and glorification.
2) The Theory of Direct Divine Right: This theory does not make the ruler a god to be worshipped. Rather, it considers him to have been chosen directly by Almighty God. This means that the will of individuals has no role in choosing him; instead, his selection is a divine matter beyond their will and capacity. Thus, the people adopted the idea that disobeying him amounts to disobeying Almighty God, and they were therefore required to obey him. Regarding his responsibility, individuals cannot hold him accountable regardless of the act he commits; he is responsible only before God, who granted him rule.
3) The Theory of Indirect Divine Right: In this theory, the ruler is human, but the method of choosing him is not direct; rather, it is indirect. Individuals are the ones who choose the ruler, but their choice is guided rather than freely determined. This means that divine providence directs the will of individuals in a specific direction and guides them to choose the ruler whom it approves, not necessarily the ruler whom the people approve.
What should be clarified here is the extent of the difference among these interpretations of divine sovereignty. Nevertheless, they all ultimately lead to making the ruler’s authority absolute and depriving peoples of the right to question him or resist tyrannical rulers, on the pretext that such rulers act under divine providence.
The theocratic theories have faced many criticisms because of their distance from reason and rational logic, and because of the services and personal interests they provide, as well as the cover they give to the despotism and powers of rulers. This was particularly evident during the conflict between religious authority and temporal authority in the Middle Ages.
The Caliphate in Islam
Islam did not separate religion from the state as Christianity did, relying on the saying attributed to Jesus son of Mary: “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” Rather, Islam made the caliphate a general leadership in matters of religion, worldly affairs, and the state. For this reason, Islam is a religion, creed, Sharia, and state.
What made the Islamic religion advance beyond all other religions in its management of both state and religion was its comprehensive general plan for both matters together, beginning with the selection of the caliph according to specific conditions agreed upon among Muslims. The caliph’s responsibility was placed before the Muslims, because his succession over the Muslims did not come from Almighty God, but from the choice of the Muslims.
Therefore, when Muslims called Abu Bakr, after the death of the master of humankind, Muhammad, peace be upon him, “the Caliph of God,” he forbade them from saying that and corrected them by stating that he was not the Caliph of God, but rather the Caliph of the Messenger of God.