In theory all Muslims,
men and women, possess the right of election. There is
no property qualification. In practice, however, women
and slaves did not exercise this right. Some of the early
lawyers seem to have recognised the danger of mass-elections
as they endeavour to show that the right of election resides
only in the tribe of the Prophet. Whether the seclusion
of women grew up in order to make women incapable of exercising
a right which in theory could not be denied to them, I
cannot say.
The elector has the
right to demand the deposition of the Caliph, or the dismissal
of his officials if he can show that their conduct is
not in accordance with the law of Islam. He can, on the
subject, address the Muslim congregation in the mosque
after the prayer. The mosque, it must be remembered, is
the Muslim Forum, and the institution of daily prayer
is closely connected with the political life of Muslim
communities. Apart from its spiritual and social functions,
the institution is meant to serve as a ready means of
constant criticism of the State. If, however, the elector
does not intend to address the congregation, he can issue
a judicial inquiry concerning the conduct of any State
official, or any other matter which affects the community
as a whole. The judicial inquiry as a rule does not mention
the name of any individual. I quote an illustration in
order to give an idea of this procedure:
In the name of God,
most merciful and clement. What is the opinion of the
doctors of law, the guides of the people, on the encouragement
of the Zimmis, and on the assistance we can demand from
them, whether as clerks to the Amirs entrusted with the
administration of the country, or as collectors of taxes?...
Explain the above by solid proofs, establish the orthodox
belief by sound arguments, and give your reasons. God
will reward you.
Such judicial inquiries
are issued by the State as well, and when the lawyers
give conflicting decisions, the majority prevails. Forced
election is quite illegal. Ibn Jama, an Egyptian lawyer,
however, holds that forced election is legal in times
of political unrest. This opportunist view has no support
in the law of Islam; though undoubtedly it is based on
historical facts. Tartushi, a Spanish lawyer, would probably
hold the same view, for he says: “Forty years of
tyranny are better than one hour of anarchy.”