Shura During The Reign Of Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him
Selections from the Book Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan (His Character And Era) And The Sufyanid State …
Written by Dr. Ali Muhammad al-Sallabi...
Episode (22)
When the caliphate passed to the Umayyads, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan was not someone who ignored the benefits of consultation or neglected to adopt it. He would not decide on important matters except through consultation. He used to consult people of opinion among the governors, the notable figures, the dignitaries, and the scholars. This became a practice followed by the caliphs who succeeded him from the Umayyad dynasty.
Among Muawiyah’s prominent advisors were Amr ibn al-Aas and al-Mughira ibn Shuba, and he would consult the delegations that came to him. People would speak freely, presenting their opinions, and the caliph would pay full attention to them, discuss their views, and implement what was feasible.
The governance relied on competent advisors and capable scribes, who were granted freedom in their work and given the caliph’s trust. They were empowered by his authority. Governance was not centralized in the person of the caliph alone; his kingdom was vast, and he could not manage everything himself. He appointed governors over the provinces and gave them wide authority in their affairs. He only appointed those he trusted and gave power only to those he did not fear. He consulted his governors within defined limits.
As for the matter of the caliphate, it was restricted to the Umayyads and became an affair specific to the Umayyad household. It was decided upon by Umayyad assemblies exclusively, to the exclusion of the general public. The Umayyad caliphs would often refer, in the matter of appointing a successor or dealing with those who sought the caliphate, to the Umayyad group.
From this, it can be said that there were two types of consultation during the Umayyad era:
First: Consultation regarding public matters and general interests. In these affairs, the Umayyad caliphs would refer to people of opinion among the notable figures, governors, and others.
Second: Consultation specific to authority and leadership. In such matters, the Umayyad caliphs would turn to their own family members and decide among themselves.
Muawiyah’s leadership of the state was not purely autocratic. Governance and administration were, for the most part, decentralized. Men of experience and sound opinion participated in shouldering the responsibilities of the state, whether in peace or war, and whether in the central government or the provinces. The presence of Islam in the life of the individual, society, and state—as a personal conduct and a system of governance—since the time of the Prophet and the Rashidun caliphs, reduced the signs and harms of individual rule. It strengthened the presence of consultation and upheld a general and consistent direction in politics, leadership, administration, and the protection of interests.
Moreover, the transformation of the Rashidun Caliphate into a hereditary monarchy did not signify a complete departure from the consultative model of the Rashidun caliphs, nor a rejection of Islam’s teachings and methodology in governance. This transformation had its justification in the social and political developments of the time. According to Ibn Khaldun, during the rule of Muawiya, Marwan, his son Abdulmalik, and the early Abbasid caliphs up to Harun al-Rashid and some of his sons, the meanings of the caliphate remained in place: maintaining religion, following its principles, and adhering to truth. The only change occurred in the form of coercive power, which shifted from being a purely religious motivation to one based on tribalism and the sword. Later, the deeper meanings of the caliphate faded, and only its name remained.
However, Ibn Khaldun’s conclusion is not absolute. During the Ottoman era—particularly under Mehmed the Conqueror—some of the meanings and objectives of the caliphate were revived, including conquest, propagation of Islam, upholding justice, and honoring the religion. The religious law did not condemn leadership based on tribal strength or monarchy if the aim was to uphold religion and manifest truth. Solomon, peace be upon him, prayed: {He said, "My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me. Indeed, You are the Bestower."} [Sad: 35], knowing that his intention in both prophethood and kingship was free of falsehood.
Accordingly, the form of monarchy that contradicts and even opposes the concept of the caliphate is despotic rule—the type characterized by unjust coercion and oppression of people without right. This was not the case with Muawiyah during his rule. In fact, many of our scholars and historians noted the strong resemblance between the objectives of Muawiyah’s governance and those of the Rashidun caliphs. For this reason, Ibn Taymiyya observed: This indicates that a blend of caliphate and monarchy is permissible in our law, and that it does not necessarily contradict justice, even if pure caliphate remains superior.
It would not be far from the truth to say that Muawiyah—and some of the Umayyad caliphs after him—would have preferred to rule in the manner of the Rashidun caliphs. However, they were not fully able to do so given the nature of their subjects and the conditions of their era. The lofty ideals and noble example set by the Rashidun caliphs in both Islamic and human governance exerted a powerful moral influence on some caliphs and segments of society alike. At the same time, however, those ideals often exceeded what those rulers could attain, and so they struggled to achieve them—only to be drawn back by the gravity of political reality, ultimately acknowledging the difficulty of the effort and its limitations.
It is narrated that Muawiyah once asked his son and heir, Yazid, how he intended to govern once he succeeded him. Yazid replied, “I will govern as Umar ibn al-Khattab did”. Muawiyah smiled and said, “By Allah, I tried to govern as Uthman did and couldn’t manage it—will you then govern as Umar did?”
This does not mean that returning to the purity of life under the Rashidun caliphs is impossible—but it cannot be achieved by the ruler alone, even with sincere intention and strong will. It requires a mutual harmony and alignment between the leader and the people, where all cooperate to build such a virtuous society. The path to that end is long and difficult, demanding generations of preachers and leaders committed to nurturing the people’s faith, serving as living examples, and dedicating their time and effort fully to that mission. Ibn Taymiyya reflected this reality when he stated that if governance deteriorates in a society, the failure lies with both the ruler and the ruled.
Thus, consultation during the time of Muawiyah and the Umayyad dynasty did shrink from what it was during the Rashidun caliphate. However, it did not vanish entirely in Muawiyah’s time, nor did it evolve completely in the way some later thinkers suggest.
- Ali Muhammad al-Sallabi, Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan (His Character And Era) And The Sufyanid State, pp. 418-422.
- The Slandered Umayyad State, pp. 276-277.
- Fatwas (35/18).
- A Study in the History of the Umayyad Caliphs, p. 102.
- The Umayyad State, Youssef Al-Ash, p. 139.
- In the History of Arab-Islamic Civilization, p. 55.
For further information and review of the sources for the article, see:
The Book of “Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan (His Character And Era) And The Sufyanid State” on the official website of Sheikh Dr. Ali Muhammad al-Sallabi:
