The Administration of the Sultanate of Dehli c8.21

c8.21

The jurists theoretically recognized the right of the ruler to act as the supreme interpreter of the Law, but in actual practice he could not go against the recognized interpretation, for it was not open to him to disregard ijmā‘ or a preponderant concurrence of opinion on any point.¹ Only where the jurists disagreed, was he free to take an independent line of action; but for this purpose he must be a learned jurist himself, for how could he, otherwise, understand the subtleties in which the lawyers delighted? He generally abided by the decisions of the majority.² This restriction, however, did not apply to his right of making all civil and political regulations for public welfare.³ Of course, he was not allowed to contravene the shar‘ in legislating on these occasions. This subservience of the ruler to the Law was in accordance with Hindu notions as well.⁴ The supremacy of the shar‘ has misled some into thinking that the sultanate was a theocracy.⁵ The essential feature of a theocracy—the rule of an ordained priesthood—is, however, missing in the organization of the Muslim state; the jurists are all laymen who claim no sacerdotal immunity from error. Gibb is right in calling the Islamic polity theo-centric.⁶