Al Mawardi

As the religion of Islam spread through conquest and missionary efforts to become a major, new world religion, various theories arose as to how the umma should be governed and what the Islamic state should consist of politically. Never before had such a large state guided by religious laws been established. Since there was no precedent to follow, theories by scholars arose as to how the state should be governed. All believed that the Shari'a and the Qur'an needed to be utilized and should serve as a guide. They had different beliefs on what the ideal state should consist of, all writing in different eras, where Muslims were affected by various internal and external factors. While all four authors believed that it was important to have a strong ruler who was well versed in Islam who would put the interests of the umma first, they differed in where that ruler should come from, and how that person became head of state. The rise of Islam was a significant development that would affect millions of converts and people devoted to other faiths who lived within its state borders. The various political theories that arose with this new monotheistic faith, impacted rulers and government officials who sought to create a united Islamic empire. One of the first divisive issues was whether or not the caliph should be a descendant of the prophet. This issue would eventually divide the Islamic community, splitting the religion into two separate branches.

Makalah ini ditulis untuk memenuhi kompetensi di mata kuliah Pemikiran Politik Islam. Makalah ini menjabarkan kontekstualisasi dan relevansi dari pemikiran politik Al-Mawardi pada zaman kontemporer. Di makalah ini dijabarkan mulai dari biografi Al-Mawardi sebagai latar belakang dan faktor-faktor yang membentuk pemikiran politiknya dan poin-poin utama dari pemikiran tersebut. Kemudian pemakalah mencoba untuk mengkontekstualisasikan dan menggali relevansi serta  dari pemikiran Al-Mawardi tersebut di zaman kontemporer, khususnya di Indonesia. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa terdapat kesamaan antara pemikiran politik dari Al-Mawardi dengan beberapa unsur di sistem politik Indonesia yang sudah dikembangkan dan berakar pada nilai-nilai Pancasila yang ada di Indonesia.

Pemimpin merupakan suatu hal krusial dalam sistem pemerintahan. Tidak semua bisa menjadi pemimpin. Seorang pemimpin haruslah mempunyai jiwa kepemimpinan. Menurut AlMawardi, pemimpin dalam Islam ditujukan untuk mengganti peran kenabian untuk melindungi agama dan mengatur kehidupan dunia, yang mana tidak hanya dari luaran saja. Sehingga apabila telah mengimplementasikan jiwa-jiwa Islam maka dapat dikatakan kepemimpinan Islam telah berjalan. Akan tetapi, makin kesini banyak sekali pemimpin yang dzalim kepada rakyatnya. Konsepsi Ibnu Taimiyah tentang penguasa dzalim mencakup: dasar pemikiran Ibnu Taimiyah tentang pemimpin dzalim, sikap dan kritik Ibnu Taimiyah untuk melawan pimpim dzalim, AlQur'an dan As-sunnah sebagai dasar masyarakat islam yang dijadikan Ibnu Taimiyah sebagai rujukan untuk menegakan kebenaran dan keadilan. Dari dua pendapat ahli ini, ingin diteliti mengenai keterkaitan tentang definisi pemimpin (imam) menurut Al-Mawardi dan Ibnu Taimiyah. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat keterkaitan antara pemimpin menurut keduanya. Dimana menurut beliau, seorang pemimpin sama-sama harus memiliki sikap serta sifat yang amanah, adil, dan mengutamakan kesejahteraan rakyat.

This study examines religion in terms of establishing and maintaining a civilization based on Abū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī's (d. 1058) contribution, "Kitāb adab al-dunyā wa-al-dīn." In this paper, the central argument is that religion is a pillar for establishing and maintaining civilization. There are no possibilities for a civilization to be constituted and maintained without a central role for religion. I will elaborate on the meaning of religion from al-Māwardī's perspective and its role in constructing a civilization. This paper considers several religious notions and concepts proposed by al-Māwardī for this purpose. For instance, 'al-Targhīb wa al-Tarhīb' (persuasion and intimidation) and al-ulfah (social affinity) indicate how religion can affect individual behaviors and actions and helps create and maintain civilization. As a methodology, this paper analyses al-Māwardī's contribution and compares it with significant contributions to civilization Studies. It concludes that a profound understanding of religion's role in any civilization gives a proper direction for understanding civilization and how religion can enhance and improve people's behavior and manners, which reflects positively on religion's role in establishing and preserving a civilization.

A fourth addendum, demonstrating once more that neither manuscript titles nor catalogue entries should ever be taken at face value! An excerpt of the Nuzhat al-Ẓurafāʾ by the Rasulid sultan al-Malik al-Afḍal, and thus not a full copy of (Pseudo-)Māwardī’s Naṣīhat al-Mulūk…

This study examines the approaches of Islamic political texts to social and political issues, both in classical and modern ages. The classical texts can be classified in two different traditions; namely, those which adopt a Greek-style discourse, such as al-Fārābī's political works and those which prefers al-fiqh traditional and bureaucratic style, such as al-Māwardī's and Nizām al-Mulk's works. On the other hand, Islamic political texts of modern era entertain mainly reflexive and defensive strategies, presupposing an ideal age in the past as a point of departure and return. This is the case in al-Mawdūdī's and Sayyid Qutb's works. The thoughts of Niccolò Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and especially those of John Rawls are taken as analyzing criteria in this study. In the scope of epistemology and political philosophy, the Anglo-Saxon tradition has some corresponding cultural goods which can be appropriated for the political needs of modern Islamic societies. On that note, it appears that there are two main approaches in the political philosophy, namely " the conceptualistic approach " and " the experimental approach ". The political works of al-Fārābī, al-Mawdūdī and Qutb employ the conceptualistic approach. While the works of al-Māwardī, Nizām al-Mulk, Niccolò Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes and especially John Rawls use the experimental approach.

From the raw egalitarian Quranic narratives on the idea of justice to the varied aspects of the prophetic idea of the polis, the genre of political thought has emerged as an extension of the larger epistemic worldview of Islam. The relationship between the ruler and the ruled has remained, for long, a part of a larger political project of Muslim imagination a nd a theoretical framework for political thinking. Yet, sub-genres like al-Âdāb As-Sulṭāniyya (literature of Sultanic ethics) and other concepts such as Hisba have not been generally well served by scholarship except within rather narrow constraints of the political history insofar as only a small number of individual thinkers have been the focus of particular interest. Basic research and monographic studies in the field of al-Âdāb As-Sulṭāniyya have generally been rather sparse. Consequently, systematic and synthetic studies – as opposed to summary statements – have been few and far between. This review article is part of the researcher’s larger project to excavate a few works in the genre of al-Âdāb As-Sulṭāniyya and investigate the development of this field in the classical period.


Classical Islamic political thought was not an independent field of study, and its contributions can be found in different types of writing that span three disciplines with distinct methods, aims, orientations and conclusions. These disciplines are: fiqh, such as al-Ahkam As-Sulṭāniyya w’al-Wilayat al-Diniyya by al-Māwardī; Islamic philosophy such as al-Madina al-Fadila by al-Farabi; and al-Âdāb As-Sulṭāniyya (the main focus of this article). For instance, unlike al-Ahkām As-Sulṭāniyya books, al-Âdāb As-Sulṭāniyya does not deal with fiqh and legal issues related to the legitimacy of authority i.e., when a sultan should be removed from his position, and how he can be appointed. And unlike the philosophy concentration on the city like in al-Mādīna al-Fādila

A Palace-City encloses within walls residences of the ruler and the ruled. Palaces are interspersed with gardens and baths, mosques and markets, bureaucracy and security, servant and served spaces. The walls are semi-permeable as the Palace-City strives to sustain a reciprocal relationship with the surrounding city. We will probe the city within city by examining Andalusian Spain’s Al Zahra in Cordoba and Al Hambra in Granada; and Mughal India’s Fatehpur Sikri; all sites as elevated as the metaphorical quest for the ideal city.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was officially established in the early twentieth century.  It has a government that has been primarily influenced by classical Sunni Islamic political thought and also somewhat by the absolute type of monarchies established in Europe that disappeared before its creation.  Saudi Arabia is a kingdom struggling with its identity in an age when there are rapid changes occurring along its borders.  It is a unique political entity that stands out among other states in the Middle East.  Saudi Arabia has managed to continue with a strong and stable government, almost consistently adhering to the ideas of classical Islamic philosophers and the Wahhabi movement.

This study analyzes Siyāsatnāma tradition in Sunnī political thought in terms of exploring the problem of just ruling. In the relevant literature, the dominant approach considers Siyāsatnāmas as ethical advice in general and regards them as ineffective against an unjust ruler who has no ethical concern. This study criticizes this dominant view by claiming that in addition to the religious/ethical argument to promote a just rule, the Siyāsatnāma tradition develops a second argument designed specifically for an unjust ruler who ignores ethical advice. This second argument is ignored by the dominant position about the Siyāsatnāma tradition. I have called it self-interest argument in this study. An unjust ruler’s self-interest is to maintain, empower, and hand down his power to his descendants. The self-interest argument tries to convince a ruler who dismisses ethical advice to adopt just ruling by revealing that even for an unjust ruler the best strategy is just ruling to reach for his worldly aims. 

Summary: Earlier civilizations generated a Siyāsatnāma tradition to provide ethical and practical advice to rulers about a just and efficient ruling in a society. This tradition played an important role in classical Islamic political thought. Muslim rulers and thinkers who are acquainted with this tradition as a result of early Islamic conquests. In the beginning, some Siyāsatnāmas were translated into Arabic but later Muslim administrators and thinkers wrote original Siyāsatnāmas by including their experiences and other Islamic sources. The Siyāsatnāmas put forward both ethical advice and practical methods for rulers to rule justly and efficiently their states. While ethical advises are mainly derived from religious sources and individuals considered to be holy, practical methods are gathered from experiences of rulers who became successful in establishing just, efficient, and strong states in history. The Siyāsatnāma tradition does not seek theoretical, abstract, and philosophical models of just ruling. Rather it relies on experimental reason, common sense, historical wisdom, and ethical reasoning. This tradition is called “Mirrors for Princes” in Western political thought.

In the relevant literature, the Siyāsatnāma tradition is seen as ethical advice in essence. This approach argues that this tradition simply relies on ethical and religious arguments to promote just ruling without devising any institutional measures such as a check and balance system to constraint the authority of the ruler. In the absence of any institutional control over the power of the ruler, the ethical argument means that: If the ruler rules justly, he would be awarded in the afterlife, while if he rules unjustly he would be punished in the afterlife. According to this approach, without any institutional measure, the Siyāsatnāma tradition, in reality, leaves the problem of just ruling to personal preference and the conscious of the ruler. It is up to the ruler whether he rules justly or unjustly, for there is not any external constraint over his power, given that he does not care about the afterlife. If he has a concern about his salvation in the afterlife, ethical advice would be effective, otherwise, those advice would not have any influence over him. As a result, according to this approach, the ethical argument fails in the final analysis against the unjust ruler who has no ethical concern. 

This dominant view ignores a second approach developed in the Siyāsatnāma tradition specifically to convince the ruler who has not any ethical concern to rule justly. I call it self-interest argument in this study. Unlike the dominant approach’s claim, the Siyāsatnāma tradition takes the problem of unjust ruler seriously and appeals to his self-interest to convince him to rule justly. The self-interest argument is clearly aware of the limits of the ethical argument against the ruler who does not care about the afterlife. An unjust ruler’s self-interest is to maintain, empower, and then hand down his dynasty to his descendants. The self-interest argument tries to convince a ruler ignoring ethical advice to adopt the just ruling by revealing that even for an unjust ruler the best strategy is just rule to reach for his worldly aims. Many historical examples are given to make it clear that unjust rules are short-lived.

The essence of the self-interest argument is that: The just rule creates trust both among individuals and the state and society, then this widespread trust awakens the desire of attaining a comfortable life in human nature. The efforts of the individuals with the purpose of attaining a comfortable life lead to social and economic development in society, which in turn increases the financial sources of the state. That is why a just rule is the only solution to create a strong state as well as a developed society. The unjust ruling on the other hand, leads to distrust between the state and society and among individuals. This distrust and fear from the state lead to deterioration of the economic situation, for the desire embedded in human nature to attain a comfortable life would not awaken in such a society. As a result, the ruler could not have the necessary financial resources, which would weaken his power. That is why the just ruling is the only solution that serves to the interest of a ruler who only wants worldly power. This study analyzes Mâwardî’s and Ghazâlî’s political theories to reveal the self-interest argument in the Siyāsatnāma tradition. 


This self-interet argument could be seen in Hobbes’ political theory also. Hobbes, as one of the founders of modern political thought, takes the civil wars created by different religious sects and ideologies in the 17th century Europe as his starting point to formulate his model of the state. Hobbes thinks that without social peace and order, there would not be a society. He offers a strong monarchy which relies on the unity of powers as a solution to establish a peaceful society. The only responsibility of Leviathan as a strong and effective state is to establish and maintain peace and order in society. Any restriction over individuals is acceptable to reach that goal according to Hobbes. The source of the authority of the ruler is not just rule but social peace and order. Yet, after securing peace and order, Hobbes argues, it is the best policy for the ruler to rule justly, for a just rule leads to both social and economic development and increases financial sources of the state. The Hobbesian argument is also self-interest argument that we could find within the Siyāsatnāma tradition. He tells the ruler that even though he does not have to rule justly, it is the best policy to serve his self-interest.