“Shura” and Conditional Maximalist Political Participation (Agent-Based)
"In the era of occultation (ghaybah), public political participation and consultation with the people are not merely a right but a religious necessity upon which the legitimacy of a religious government depends."
Shura (consultation) and political participation are two key concepts in the Islamic political system, rooted in the Quran and the tradition of the Infallibles (Ma’sumin). This article, through an analytical-interpretive approach, examines the nature of Shura in the Quran and demonstrates that conditional maximal (agentive) political participation is not only a rational mechanism but also a religious obligation in the era of occultation. By referencing the Quranic verses on Shura and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the author argues that consulting the people and adhering to its outcomes strengthens the foundations of a religious government’s legitimacy. This research is a significant step in elucidating Shiite political theory and addressing contemporary challenges in Islamic governance.
Abstract
Shura is one of the most important concepts in political science and in the political-thematic interpretation of the Quran, closely tied to political participation. Accordingly, the main research question is: What is the nature of Shura in the Quran, and what approach to it aligns with the Quran’s preferred method? The study’s hypothesis, based on thematic exegesis, posits that Shura is a concept from which political participation can be derived and interrogated, capable of being assessed within modern frameworks. Based on this assessment, it can be argued that, from the Quranic perspective, Shura—as an affirmed (imdā’ī) concept distinct from mere consultation—carries a form of obligation, particularly in the public-political sphere during the occultation of the Infallible. From this viewpoint, it constitutes a crucial pillar of the approach to conditional maximal (agentive) political participation.
The agentive (conditional maximal) approach to the verses on Shura and political participation acknowledges divine appointment (nass and nasb) in leadership selection while affirming the role of public political participation. Consultation with the people or their representatives is not merely decorative; rather, consultation is necessary, and adherence to its outcomes is, in principle, obligatory. Thus, in the era of occultation, public political participation and consultation with the people are essential both in selecting leadership and in the process of political decision-making—provided certain preconditions are mandatorily observed. The legitimacy of the formation and continuity of a religious government is intrinsically tied to this principle.
Keywords: Shura, Political Participation, Conditional Maximal (Agentive) Political Participation, Political-Thematic Interpretation of the Quran, Political Theology, Verses on Shura.
1. Introduction
Political participation is one of the most significant concepts in political science and represents one of the most critical and nuanced political challenges—both theoretically and practically—in contemporary Iranian society. Various perspectives from diverse intellectual traditions have been proposed on this matter. The discussion of political participation, as a pivotal and sensitive juncture in this discourse, must be examined from multiple dimensions to distinguish the Quranic and Islamic approach from alternative frameworks. The primary source of inspiration, however, remains the Holy Quran. Accordingly, an analysis of Quranic verses related to political participation and its subsidiary concepts can provide theoretical and practical solutions.
On the other hand, the concept of Shura (consultation) is one of the most important Quranic terms, perhaps the closest in meaning to political participation. Throughout Muslim political history, the verses on Shura have been cited, analyzed, celebrated, and subjected to diverse interpretations—either to expand or restrict political participation, both in the past and in the modern era. Some have equated it with democracy or even considered it superior; others have reduced democracy to Shura, while some have described it as a “baptism” of democracy. Regardless, the concept of Shura holds a prominent place in the analytical frameworks of Quranic political exegesis, political theology, and Shiite and Sunni political jurisprudence, maintaining a strong connection with political participation across all interpretive approaches.
Political participation is linked to major theories such as elitism theory and pluralism theory, which alternately contract or expand the scope of political participation (Fayyaz, 1998: 44; Misfa, 1996: 9; Pye, 1991; Rush, 1998: 123). The preferred definition of political participation in this study is the active, often conscious involvement of individuals or groups in the public sphere, encompassing processes of social influence, power exertion, decision-making, and implementation—whether in supportive, supervisory, or competitive forms. This definition, first, excludes most unconscious actions and, second, dismisses passive engagement. Moreover, from a religious perspective, ideal political participation is activity that pursues the material and spiritual prosperity of society and is not reduced to any singular dimension, particularly material welfare. This research also focuses on power dynamics within society and in relation to governance.
The conditional maximal (agentive) approach to political participation (wikāla-garāyāneh) regards the jurist (faqīh) as the deputy of the Infallible Imam (a.s.)—a delegation (wikāla)—while simultaneously asserting that the actualization of this authority (wilāya) and the jurist’s executive capacity depend, from a religious standpoint, on public support (kār-gozārī). If public opinion aligns with religious law, it becomes a condition for legitimacy. Unlike alternative theories, this model affirms the jurist’s inherent authority (wilāya) but predicates its activation on public acceptance and participation as a component of causality (juzʾ al-ʿilla).
Thus, the core research question is: What is the nature of Shura in the Quran, and what interpretive approach aligns with the Quran’s preferred perspective? The hypothesis, grounded in thematic exegesis (tafsīr mawḍūʿī), posits that Shura is a concept from which political participation can be derived and interrogated, capable of being assessed within modern frameworks. From the Quranic viewpoint, Shura—as an affirmed (imḍāʾī) concept distinct from mere consultation—carries a form of obligation, particularly in the public-political sphere during the occultation (ghayba) of the Infallible. It thus constitutes a cornerstone of the conditional maximal (agentive) political participation model.
2. Literature Review
Limited studies address political participation in the Quran and its exegeses. Examples include:
The Right to Political Participation and Political Freedom with Emphasis on the Quran (Seyyed Bagheri, 2018: 41–65), which examines political participation’s role in freedom across three stages.
Political Participation in the Islamic Utopia from Quranic and Narrational Perspectives (Yazdani, 2018: 48–73). Both articles are directly relevant.
Sections of Government and Politics in the Quran (Ghazi-Zadeh, 2007) and works on wilāyat al-faqīh or Islamic governance, though standalone studies remain scarce.
Three recent books are particularly pertinent:
Political Participation in Shiite Political Jurisprudence (Izdehi, 2017), the most rigorous work in this field, offers a jurisprudential (fiqhī) analysis of political participation under legitimate and illegitimate political systems.
Indicators of Political Participation in the Islamic Model of Progress (Khaloosi, 2016).
Shiite Political Jurisprudence’s Strategies for Expanding Political Participation (Rahmani, 2015), which explores participatory models through a Shiite jurisprudential lens.
On Shura and its relation to concepts like democracy, notable works include:
Islam and Deliberative Democracy (Mirahmadi, 2014).
The Concept of Shura in Iranian Experience (Mirahmadi, 2015).
Shura and Allegiance (Bayʿa) (Bazargan, 1999).
Shura and Democracy in Contemporary Shiite Political Thought (Attarzadeh, 2014).
Shura: Between Text and Historical Experience (Al-Sayyid, 2006).
Tawfiq al-Shawi’s Theory of General Consultation in Islam (Firahi, 2009).
However, research on agentive political participation (wikāla-garāyāneh), which reflects the dual dynamics of structure and agency, remains cursory and non-Quranic (Lakzaei, 2002: 135–160). This study addresses the gap through a detailed Quranic analysis, delineating the concept of conditional maximal participation within this framework.
3. Research Methodology
This study employs a library research method utilizing an ijtihādī (jurisprudential) thematic exegesis (tafsīr mawḍūʿī) approach. Thematic exegesis has been defined in various ways. Given its interpretive nature, it is inherently an ijtihādī endeavor. Ayatollah Sayyid Muḥammad Bāqir al-Ṣadr explains that in this method, the exegete does not examine Quranic verses sequentially but instead focuses research on a specific topic—whether ideological, social, or cosmological—addressed by the Quran, analyzing it comprehensively (Ṣadr, n.d.: 12). Sayyid Muḥammad Bāqir al-Ḥakīm (Ḥakīm, 1999: 368–363) aligns with his teacher al-Ṣadr’s perspective, though these definitions lack clarity regarding shared thematic criteria.
Others define it as “a discipline examining Quranic propositions united in meaning or objective, achieved by gathering scattered verses, contemplating them through a specific methodology under particular conditions, to articulate the verses, extract Quranic elements, and establish inter-verse connections” (ʿAbd al-Sattār, 1997). Additional definitions exist (Subḥānī, 2006, vol. 1: 11; Muslim, 2000: 16). Muḥammad Bāqir Maʿrifat considers thematic exegesis indispensable, framing it as a response to posed questions—sometimes arising from within the Quran itself, other times from societal realities—with answers derived from the Quran. The latter approach, termed istinṭāq (interrogative derivation), is validated by Imam ʿAlī’s dictum: “That is the Quran—make it speak!” (Nahj al-Balāgha, Sermon 158). Maʿrifat categorizes thematic exegesis into four types (Marviyān, 2008).
This study’s preferred definition, synthesizing select viewpoints (Jalīlī, 1993: 170), is:
“An interrogative effort to methodically understand the Quran’s perspective by theoretically grounded compilation of verses addressing live scientific or theoretical questions emerging from human knowledge—unified in meaning or objective—where the Quran is expected to offer substantive guidance.”
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Distinction Between Shūrā (Consultative Council) and Mashwara (Personal Consultation)
A critical nuance for this discussion is differentiating shūrā from mashwara. While mashwara spans both private and public domains, shūrā is primarily a public concept. Verses and narrations on mashwara emphasize personal channels and individual decision-making, distinct from shūrā—a view shared by scholars like al-Shāwī (1992: 7). For instance, narrations about Imam ʿAlī consulting ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās regarding accepting the caliphate after ʿUthmān’s assassination (35 AH; Ṭabarī, vol. 4: 406), or his advice to Ibn ʿAbbās: “Opine, and I will reflect. If I dissent, obey me” (Nahj al-Balāgha, Maxim 321), illustrate mashwara (leader-advisor dynamics), not shūrā. Similarly, Imam al-Riḍā’s (a.s.) narration—“The Prophet (PBUH) consulted his companions, then resolved as he willed” (Barqī, vol. 2: 601; Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, vol. 12: 44)—highlights personal consultation, not institutional shūrā.
Imam ʿAlī’s counsel to his son Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyya—“Combine others’ opinions, select the soundest (closest to truth, farthest from error), for the self-opinionated risk peril, while those welcoming others’ views discern pitfalls” (Ṣadūq, 1992, vol. 4: 385; Fayḍ al-Kāshānī, 1985, vol. 26: 233; Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, 1988, vol. 12: 46)—underscores individual consultation’s value, not institutional deliberation.
Key Differences:
Mashwara: An inherently individual process where decision-making rests with the leader (e.g., a ruler consulting advisors). Its aim is clarifying perspectives for personal decisions—though still politically relevant.
Shūrā: A social institution grounded in collective decision-making for common interests, rights, and welfare. Unlike mashwara, participants in shūrā are stakeholders, not mere advisors.
Thus, the Quranic phrase “Consult them (wa-shāwirhum) in affairs” (Q 3:159) primarily denotes institutional shūrā and public participation. Similarly, “Their affairs are by consultation” (Q 42:38), irrespective of its Meccan context, refers to public-political matters—reinforced by the post-Uḥud narrative where collective shūrā determined battle tactics.
Historically, shūrā entailed majority-based collective decisions under pre-agreed norms, as practiced by the Prophet (PBUH)—sometimes privately, other times publicly (e.g., Dar al-Nadwa or Saqīfa deliberations). The Uḥud decision exemplifies institutional shūrā. While its mechanisms differed from modern practices, its institutional essence remains demonstrable. Scenarios of shūrā’s operation and its nexus with political participation warrant further analysis, but its institutional nature is well-established.
4-2. Shura as an Affirmative (Imḍā’ī) Rather Than Foundational (Ta’sīsī) Concept
Another crucial point is that the practice of consultation (mashwara) and subsequently institutionalized consultation (shūrā) in political and governmental affairs has long been prevalent across various societies, including those of Mecca and Medina. Specifically, in Mecca, Qusayy ibn Kilāb, the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) fourth-generation grandfather, upon attaining leadership and authority, established a designated venue—Dār al-Nadwa—for mutual consultation between himself and the people. This practice was not unique to Mecca but was also observed among other tribes and cities. Consequently, the Prophet’s political conduct was rooted in the rationally established customs (sīrat al-ʿuqalāʾ) and social norms divinely sanctioned by God, forming the basis of affirmative rulings (aḥkām imḍāʾiyya).
From this perspective, shūrā had an extensive historical precedent among the tribes and cities of the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in Mecca. Qusayy’s most significant initiative in Mecca was arguably the establishment of Dār al-Nadwa, which organized political offices and social affairs. Participation in Dār al-Nadwa was restricted to Qusayy’s descendants and his Qurayshite allies. The assembly convened Mecca’s elite, comprising elders and nobles of Quraysh, with no individuals under forty permitted entry—except for Qusayy’s descendants, who could attend regardless of age (Azraqī, 1989: 88). Other Qurayshites could only participate if they had reached forty years of age. Dār al-Nadwa served as a forum for deliberation and decision-making on Meccan political, military, social, and economic matters. Among its historically consequential decisions were:
The treaty between Khuzāʿa and Banū Hāshim (Ibn Saʿd, 2000, vol. 1: 66; Ibn Ḥabīb, 1964: 89).
The groundwork for the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl alliance (Masʿūdī, 1965–1979, vol. 3: 9).
Quraysh’s resolution to assassinate the Prophet (PBUH), leading to his emigration on Laylat al-Mabīt (Ibn Hishām, vol. 2: 124; Ibn Saʿd, vol. 1: 193–194).
Thus, shūrā was an affirmative institution (nāẓariyya imḍāʾiyya) with deep roots among the people of Mecca, Medina, and most contemporaneous nations—albeit with variations across cultures. It operated on established norms wherein, despite the prominence of leaders, decisions were ultimately collective. This historical context underscores its intrinsic connection to the concept of political participation.
5. Argument from the General Meaning of Surah Shura 42:38
The argument from the verse “And those who have responded to their Lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend” (42:38) regarding political participation requires establishing several points, including its applicability to major governmental matters. The verse employs a declarative form (inshā’ in the form of khabar), and there is no counterevidence to its implication. The consultants in this context are either the entire Islamic community or its elites.
Within the framework of the conditional maximal (agentive) approach to political participation, a distinction must be made between the era of the Infallible Imam’s presence (ʿaṣr al-ḥuḍūr) and the era of occultation (ʿaṣr al-ghaybah), with the latter falling outside the general applicability of consultation. In leadership selection during the era of presence, definitive textual proofs (nuṣūṣ) remove the matter from the realm of majority opinion and popular election—a presupposition beyond the scope of this discussion. However, regarding governance implementation, we adopt a nuanced position to be elaborated later. Importantly, this approach does not negate individual leadership but emphasizes the necessity of granting due weight to public and elite political participation.
Verse 38 of Surah Shura describes the characteristics of believers, listing the requirements and consequences of faith alongside responding to God, establishing prayer, and spending wealth. While some scholars deny its jurisprudential implication for the obligation (wujūb) of consultation, others affirm it. Regardless of juristic debate, the verse’s language clearly conveys necessity in Quranic discourse. The term “amr” (affair) here encompasses all personal and social matters.
Two perspectives exist on this verse:
Non-Political View: Some argue it has no direct relevance to sociopolitical issues, primarily emphasizing the importance of consultation in individual and communal life without specific reference to political institutions—though it may secondarily apply.
Political View: Others interpret “amr” as referring to political matters, situating the verse within the social life of believers.
Both views agree on the verse’s applicability to sociopolitical management in a religious government. Another debate concerns whether the verse is substantive (mawḍūʿī) or merely procedural (ṭarīqī) for the Infallible. Even if consultation is procedural, this does not undermine the argument for obligatory political participation; rather, it strengthens it. If the Infallible, despite having no need for consultation, adheres to it, then non-Infallibles are all the more bound by it.
A further critique posits that the verse’s Meccan context precludes sociopolitical relevance. The response is that although the verse is likely Meccan, the clause “their affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves” is a universal, essential proposition (qaḍiyyah ḥaqīqiyyah), not tied to a specific occasion of revelation (sabab al-nuzūl). Even in Mecca, the Prophet’s call carried sociopolitical dimensions. Thus, while the verse’s primary implication may not explicitly address politics, it carries an implicit and general applicability. Some exegetes, like Ṭabāṭabāʾī (1390 AH, 18:6), consider parts of Surah Shura, including this verse, Medinan.
The Obligatory Nature of Shura
The primary question is whether recourse to Shura is obligatory or non-obligatory during presence and occultation. The agentive approach holds that Shura is necessary in both eras, as the verse’s language implies obligation, prescribing consultation as the norm for believers in political affairs—though its specifics may vary. Some exegeses, like Aḥsan al-Ḥadīth, affirm the substantive role of Shura in Islam (Qurashī, 9:498).
A ruler must avoid autocracy, consulting knowledgeable and qualified individuals to minimize error, though the final decision rests with them. The obligation to obey those in authority (ūlī al-amr) does not preclude recourse to Shura. Shura is a fundamental rule for Muslims unless specific evidence dictates otherwise, as the term “amr” implies generality. Min Waḥy al-Qurʾān (ibid., 191–192) supports this.
Quranic analysis and the Prophet’s Sunnah demonstrate that consultation was a consistent practice, even for the Infallible, who consulted on social, executive, military, and strategic matters. Three theories on Shura emerge:
Permissive: Shura is a right.
Obligatory: Shura is a duty.
Hybrid: A more robust theory combining both.
This third theory obliges even a just jurist (faqīh) to consult before decision-making, as noted in Tafsīr al-Hidāyah (12:365). Some exegeses emphasize Shura’s necessity during occultation, even restricting governance to consultation among knowledgeable, pious elites in matters of legal or situational ambiguity. While exclusivity may be untenable, Shura is indispensable for societal cohesion.
Some argue that the Prophet, despite receiving revelation, needed consultation except in matters of divine command (amr Allāh). As ʿĀmilī (2:257) states: “The Prophet (ṣ) adhered to general principles in worldly matters, utilizing others’ intellects and actions as a necessity of life.”
Sunni exegetes and jurists also affirm Shura’s obligation. Early scholars like Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and Sufyān al-Thawrī deemed it obligatory for the Prophet (Ibn ʿĀshūr, 3:269). The Mālikīs universally consider it obligatory (Ibn ʿĀshūr, 3:268), while Shāfiʿīs are divided between recommending and obliging it (Ibn ʿĀshūr, 3:268–269). Ḥanafīs use the term “mamūr” (commanded), implying necessity, with figures like al-Jaṣṣāṣ inferring obligation.
In sum, the verse’s language indicates necessity, with juristic rulings ranging from strongly recommended (mustaḥabb muʾakkad) to obligatory. Even if obligation is unproven, the strong recommendation powerfully reinforces political participation.
6. Argument from Surah Āl ʿImrān 3:159
The verse “So by mercy from Allah, you were gentle with them. Had you been harsh, they would have dispersed. So pardon them, seek forgiveness, and consult them in the matter. Then, when you have resolved, rely upon Allah” (3:159) is pivotal for Shura’s link to political participation. Revealed post-Uhud, it reaffirms consultation despite adverse outcomes.
Key questions arise:
Does “amr” (matter) extend beyond war tactics?
Does “shāwirhum” (consult them) imply obligation or permissibility?
Is the address exclusive to the Prophet?
Most exegetes agree on the generality of “amr” and the non-exclusivity of the address. Ibn ʿĀshūr (3:268) states the Prophet was commanded to consult.
Obligation to Implement Shura’s Outcomes
The agentive approach generally holds that acting on Shura’s outcomes is obligatory in major matters, especially during occultation. The phrase “when you have resolved” (fa-idhā ʿazamta) implies the leader’s commitment to Shura’s results after consultation. The omitted object (maḥdhūf) could be “resolve to implement the Shura’s opinion.” Rejecting a majority opinion defeats Shura’s purpose. While Shura’s outcomes vary, implementation is obligatory when a decisive majority convinces the leader.
Some argue that while consultation is obligatory for the Prophet, decision-making remains his prerogative, as “then rely upon Allah” suggests final authority. Exegeses like Mafāhīm al-Qurʾān extend this to all rulers, denying obligation to follow Shura’s outcomes. This view rests on the Infallible’s immunity (ʿiṣmah) and knowledge, rendering Shura a means to:
Empower the community.
Garner public approval.
Justify decisions to consultants.
Cultivate consultative readiness.
Develop intellectual and leadership capacities.
Critiques of this view note that:
The extent of the Infallible’s knowledge in daily matters is debated. At Uhud, Ḥubāb ibn al-Mundhir’s advice on camp positioning was accepted (Ibn Saʿd, 3:427; Ibn Khaldūn, 412; Ṭabarī, 3:960).
During Tabūk, the Prophet initially lacked knowledge of a lost camel (Majlisī, 18:109; al-Wāqidī, 3:1010; Ibn Hishām, 4:523).
“When you have resolved” is a corollary to consultation, implying resolution to act on Shura’s outcomes when convincing.
The shift from plural (“consult them”) to singular (“you resolve”) reflects leadership execution, not unilateral decision-making. Even if technical objections are dismissed, the emphasis on maximal participation remains, as the Infallible’s adherence to Shura—despite divine connection—underscores its necessity.
Some exegeses, like Tasnīm (Jawādī Āmulī, 16:134), argue that while the verse may not explicitly mandate obligation, major governance matters for non-Infallibles necessitate consultation under “what is indispensable for an obligation is itself obligatory.” Others, like Min Waḥy al-Qurʾān (Faḍlullāh, 6:344–347), condition adherence to Shura’s outcomes on the Infallible’s conviction—a balanced view adopted here.
Historical analysis shows the Prophet never contravened a majority opinion post-consultation. Thus, “what God wills” refers to acting on consultative outcomes that convince the Infallible.
“The concept of Shura (consultation) in the Quran is not merely an ethical recommendation, but a political imperative that necessitates maximal public participation in religious governance. During the era of occultation (ghayba), consultation and acceptance of public opinion become essential conditions for both the legitimacy and efficacy of the Islamic system.”
7. Argument Based on the Content of Verse 159 of Surah Āl ʿImrān
This verse (“So by mercy from Allah, you were gentle with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]“) is the second most significant verse concerning the framework of shūrā and its relationship with political participation. Revealed in the aftermath of the Battle of Uḥud, the verse addresses the Prophet’s (PBUH) consultation with his companions. Ṭabarī recounts that when the Prophet learned of Quraysh’s encampment at the foothills of Uḥud, he sought their counsel. Some advocated confronting the enemy outside Medina, while the Anṣār argued for remaining in the city. Despite initially favoring defense, the Prophet ultimately accepted ʿAbdullāh ibn Ubayy’s plea not to “deprive them of Paradise,” donned his armor, and marched to Uḥud (Ṭabarī, 1987, vol. 2: 60).
Despite the tragic outcome of Uḥud—which might have discredited collective decision-making—the verse reaffirms the Prophet’s established practice of consulting the people, even when consequences are unfavorable. To fully derive the verse’s implications, several questions must be addressed:
Does “the matter” (al-amr) refer only to military affairs or broader issues?
Does “consult them” (wa-shāwirhum) indicate obligation (wujūb) or permissibility (istihbāb)?
Is the command exclusive to the Prophet or universally applicable?
Key Interpretive Points:
Scope of “al-amr“: The definite article (al) here denotes generality (jins), encompassing all socio-political matters—a view supported by most exegetes.
Universality of the Command: Nearly all interpretations agree the verse is not limited to the Prophet. Ibn ʿĀshūr (a contemporary Sunni exegete) explicitly states the Prophet was commanded to practice shūrā (al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, vol. 3: 268).
The Obligation to Implement Shūrā‘s Outcome:
The crux lies in whether leaders must act on consultative outcomes. The agentive participation model (wikāla-garāyāna) generally obligates adherence to shūrā in major affairs, especially during the occultation (ghayba). While some argue the phrase “when you have decided” (fa-idhā ʿazamta) reserves final authority for the leader, this overlooks the verse’s structure:
The omitted object of ʿazamta could logically be “to implement the consultative opinion” (ʿalā tanfīdh raʾy al-shūrā), as rejecting a majority opinion would negate shūrā‘s purpose.
Historical precedent shows the Prophet consistently acted on shūrā‘s outcomes (e.g., Uḥud, Badr).
Counterarguments and Rebuttals:
Post-Tawahhum al-Ḥaẓr (Assumption of Prohibition): Some claim the verse merely permits consultation after Uḥud’s fallout, without obligating it. This fails because:
The Prophet’s continuous practice of shūrā post-Uḥud confirms its necessity.
Isolating the verse from its historical context is methodologically unsound.
Contextual Apparent Permissibility: The juxtaposition of “pardon them” (arguably recommended) with “consult them” might suggest non-obligation. However:
Grammatically, imperative verbs (ifʿal) default to obligation unless contradicted.
The Quran often pairs obligations and recommendations (e.g., Q73:20: recitation [recommended] with prayer [obligatory]).
Theological and Historical Evidence:
Hadith: The Prophet stated: “When your rulers are the best among you, your wealthy are generous, and your affairs are decided through consultation, then the earth’s surface is better for you than its depths [i.e., life prospers]. But if the opposite prevails, the earth’s depths become better” (Tirmidhī, vol. 3: 361; Tuḥaf al-ʿUqūl: 36).
Imam al-Riḍā’s Narration: When asked to recommend a successor for his deceased servant, the Imam responded sternly: “The Prophet consulted his companions, then resolved as Allah willed” (Barqī, vol. 2: 601). Historically, “Allah’s will” always aligned with shūrā‘s outcome.
The verse’s prima facie meaning indicates obligation, as supported by:
The imperative form (wa-shāwirhum).
The Prophet’s unbroken adherence to shūrā.
Analogical reasoning (qiyās): If collective decision-making is indispensable for non-infallible rulers (“what is necessary to fulfill an obligation is itself obligatory”), shūrā becomes obligatory in governance.
Even if one disputes its necessity during the Prophet’s era, the occultation period eliminates any grounds for exemption. As Tafsīr al-Tasnīm argues (Javādī Āmulī, 2009, vol. 16: 134), major state affairs cannot be properly managed without consultation. Thus, the verse institutionalizes shūrā as the cornerstone of Islamic polity—a principle resilient even after Uḥud’s calamity, ensuring the community’s cohesion beyond the leadership of infallibles.
8. The Practice of the Infallibles (Maʿṣūmīn) in Utilizing Consultation (Shūrā) and Political Participation
In completing our discussion on shūrā and its relationship with political participation – given that our research method employs thematic exegesis (tafsīr mawḍūʿī) which requires a comprehensive approach – we must examine the practice (sīra) of the Infallibles, particularly the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Prophet’s consistent and perpetual practice was to consult with the people. Here we briefly present examples of his consultations, which sometimes took individual forms, sometimes collective institutional shūrā, and sometimes consultations with select advisors. Naturally, when consulting large groups of Muslims to gather opinions, this constitutes institutional shūrā; individual consultations remain personal advice-seeking, while limited consultations with select groups represent advisory councils.
1. The Prophet’s Consultations During the Battle of Badr
The Prophet engaged in three consultations during Badr: First: Regarding whether to engage in battle – though he personally seemed inclined to fight – he consulted his companions. Historical accounts indicate this was conducted as institutional shūrā or public consultation. After learning of Quraysh’s movements, he sought counsel. Initially, Abu Bakr and Umar advised against fighting, arguing Quraysh would fight fiercely. Then Miqdad stood and declared they would not repeat the Israelites’ mistake of refusing to fight alongside Moses (Quran 5:24). The Prophet particularly sought the Ansar’s opinion since they formed the majority and had pledged support at the ʿAqaba Pledge. Saʿd ibn Muʿādh, representing the Ansar, affirmed their unconditional support, prompting the Prophet to order mobilization (Wāqidī, 1988, 1:47; Ṭabarī, 2:140,189).
A potential interpretive objection arises from the early verses of Sūrat al-Anfāl (8:5) which suggest the decision to fight came from divine command. Two responses:
No historical account mentions the Prophet revealing divine instruction before consultation – the shūrā process is well-documented.
These verses address post-battle disputes over spoils, reflecting God’s will manifest through ordinary means like majority consensus, not negating the consultative process. Quranic verses like “You did not throw when you threw, but God threw” (8:17) demonstrate divine will operating through human agency.
Second: Regarding battlefield positioning, the Prophet consulted companions when camping near Badr’s wells. Ḥubāb ibn Mundhir questioned if the location was divinely ordained; when told it wasn’t, he suggested militarily superior positions which the Prophet accepted (Ibn Hishām, 1997, 2:258; Ṭabarī, 1987, 2:20).
Third: Concerning prisoners of war, he consulted senior companions collectively, unanimously accepting ransom payments which he implemented (Wāqidī, 3:926).
2. The Battle of Uḥud
The Prophet convened shūrā to respond to Quraysh’s army. ʿAbdullāh ibn Ubayy proposed defensive tactics inside Medina, supported by tribal leaders but opposed by youth. Despite personally favoring defense, the Prophet accepted the majority opinion (Wāqidī, 1:211).
3. The Battle of the Trench (Khandaq)
Here too, the Prophet followed consultative decisions. Some suggested defending from Medina’s high points, but Salmān al-Fārisī’s proposal to dig trenches – drawing on Persian military tradition – was unanimously adopted (Ṭabarī, 2:224; Wāqidī, 1:444). He also rejected a tribe’s demand for one-third of Medina’s dates after consulting senior companions.
Additional examples include consultations during:
The conflicts with Banū Qurayẓa and Banū al-Naḍīr (Bayhaqī, 9:218)
The Ḥudaybiyya treaty negotiations (Ibn Kathīr, 1:220)
The expeditions to Ṭāʾif (Ḥalabī, 3:161) and Tabūk (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 10:82-83)
This consistent pattern establishes shūrā as fundamental to the Prophet’s leadership methodology, demonstrating that collective decision-making formed an essential mechanism in early Islamic governance – whether through institutionalized councils or advisory consultations. The historical record shows no instance where the Prophet disregarded consultative outcomes after they had reached majority consensus.
9. Conclusion
The conceptualization of political participation represents a challenging issue in political-thematic exegesis, as addressed in several Quranic verses. Concurrently, the notion of shura (consultation) emerges as a fundamental concept intrinsically linked to political participation, serving to delineate its boundaries and parameters. The interpretive approach to shura within Quranic hermeneutics and religious texts substantially influences the preferred model of political participation in an Islamic state.
The agentive approach (conditional maximal participation) regarding the verses on shura and their relation to political participation maintains that while acknowledging divine designation (nass wa nasb) in leadership selection, it nevertheless affirms the substantive (mawdu’i) – not merely procedural (tariqi) – role of public political participation. Based on the shura verses, consultation with the people or their representatives cannot be regarded as merely decorative or peripheral. Both the act of consultation itself and the general commitment to its outcomes are necessary obligations. The very establishment of consultative councils by the Infallible Imam demonstrates their prior implicit commitment to the results of such consultation – at minimum in cases where a decisive majority reaches a consensus that persuades the Infallible leader.
While questions may persist about the Infallible Imam’s obligation to follow consultative outcomes – particularly for textually-designated Imams (al-a’imma al-mansus) – no such reservations apply to non-infallible leaders. For them, adherence to consultative outcomes, at least in major affairs, is definitive. Consequently, during the era of occultation (asr al-ghayba), public political participation and consultation with the people become obligatory in both leadership selection and political decision-making processes. This remains subject to observing prerequisite conditions and contextual factors in leadership selection and governance procedures. Nevertheless, according to this political interpretation of the Quran and the derived principles of Shia political theology, attention to public opinion and its participation in decision-making and policy formulation processes becomes an essential requirement. Indeed, the very legitimacy (shar’iyya) of the establishment and continuity of a religious government remains inextricably tied to this participatory framework.
References
The Holy Quran
Nahj al-Balagha
Ibn Habib, Muhammad. Kitab al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh. Edited by Khurshid Ahmad Faruq. Hyderabad: Da’irat al-Ma’arif al-‘Uthmaniyya, 1964.
Ibn Manzur, Muhammad. Lisan al-‘Arab. Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1405 AH.
Ibn Hisham, Abd al-Malik. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya. 6th ed. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1418 AH.
Araki, Mohsen. “The Position of Shura in Selecting an Islamic Ruler.” Islamic Government Quarterly 14, no. 2 (Summer 2009).
Arasta, Mohammad Javad, and Hussein Sheikh al-Molouk. “Rational Arguments for the Necessity of Consultation in Islamic Government with an Approach to Imam Khomeini’s Practice.” Matin Research Journal 18, no. 73 (Winter 2016).
Arasta, Mohammad Javad. “Attention to Public Opinion in Imam Ali’s View.” Islamic Government Quarterly 17 (Autumn 2000).
Arasta, Mohammad Javad. “People and the Establishment of Islamic Government.” Islamic Revolution Studies 2 (Autumn 2005).
Azraqi, Abu al-Walid Muhammad. Akhbar Makka wa ma Ja’a fiha min al-Athar. Edited by Rushdi al-Salih Malhas. Translated and annotated by Mahmoud Mahdavi Damghani. Tehran: Bunyad, 1989.
Izdehi, Seyed Sajjad. Political Participation in Shiite Political Jurisprudence. Tehran: Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute, 2017.
Bazargan, Abdolali. Shura and Bay’ah: Divine Sovereignty in People’s Government. Tehran: Sahami Enteshar, 1999.
Pye, Lucian. Political Culture and Political Development. Translated by Majid Mohammadi. Nameh Farhang 5-6 (Fall and Winter 1991).
Khalousi, Mohammad Hussein. Indicators of Political Participation in the Islamic Model of Progress. Qom: Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute, 2016.
Rush, Michael. Society and Politics. Translated by Manouchehr Sabouri. Tehran: SAMT, 2004.
Ragheb Isfahani, Hussein ibn Muhammad. Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran. Qom: Daftar-e Nashr, 1404 AH.
Rahmani, Naser Ali. Strategies of Shiite Political Jurisprudence for Expanding Political Participation. Qom: Al-Mustafa Publications, 2015.
Sobhani, Ja’far. Mafahim al-Quran. Qom: Imam Sadiq Institute, 2006.
Al-Sayyid, Radwan. “Shura: Between Text and Historical Experience.” Translated by Majid Moradi. Political Sciences Journal 36 (Winter 2006): 199-216.
Seyyed Bagheri, Seyyed Kazem. “The Right to Political Participation and Political Freedom with Emphasis on the Quran.” Islamic Political Research 6, no. 14 (Fall and Winter 2018): 41-65.
