Hakimiyya or Human Responsibility? Why Muslims Need a New Vision of Divine Power

 Hakimiyya or Human Responsibility? Why Muslims Need a New Vision of Divine Power

 

Adis Duderija

 

For more than a century, one idea has exercised a powerful influence on Muslim political thought: hakimiyya, the belief that legislative sovereignty belongs exclusively to God. Popularised in the modern period by Islamist thinkers such as Abul A'la Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, but very much present in many forms of premodern Islam, the concept has become a cornerstone of many Islamist and fundamentalist visions of society.

At first glance, the idea appears uncontroversial. Muslims affirm that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. The Qur'an repeatedly reminds believers that ultimate authority belongs to God. So what is the problem?

The problem begins when a theological truth is transformed into a political ideology.

In many traditional and fundamentalist interpretations, hakimiyya is understood as God's unilateral and absolute control over reality. Human beings are expected primarily to submit, obey, and implement divinely revealed rules. Political legitimacy becomes tied not to justice, compassion, or public welfare but to claims about enforcing God's law. Those who disagree can easily be portrayed as opposing God's sovereignty itself.

This way of thinking has shaped various Islamist movements across the world. Although the outcomes vary, the underlying logic remains similar: God rules, humans obey.

But what if this understanding of divine rule is itself deeply flawed?

The Hidden Problem: A Theology of Control

The traditional understanding of hakimiyya rests upon a particular image of God. God is imagined primarily as a supreme ruler whose power consists in unilateral control. Divine perfection is associated with absolute domination. The stronger God's power, the less room there is for genuine creaturely freedom.

This image owes as much to ancient imperial models of kingship as it does to revelation itself.

The Qur'an certainly describes God as sovereign, but it also speaks of God as merciful, responsive, forgiving, patient, and relational. It portrays God as entering into dialogue with human beings, responding to their choices, and inviting cooperation in the pursuit of justice.

The Qur'anic story is not one of puppets controlled by an all-determining ruler. It is a story of moral agents called to participate in the creation of a more just and compassionate world.

Yet many Muslim theological traditions gradually came to emphasise divine omnipotence at the expense of human creativity and responsibility. The result was a theology that often values obedience more than moral imagination.

A Different Way of Thinking About God

Process-relational theology offers another possibility.

Instead of understanding divine power as coercive control, it understands divine power as persuasive love.

In this view, God is not a cosmic dictator pulling every string in the universe. Nor is God a distant observer. God continuously calls creation towards greater beauty, justice, harmony, and compassion. God's power works through invitation rather than coercion.

Parents often understand this distinction better than theologians. A good parent does not dominate every aspect of a child's life. Instead, they guide, encourage, persuade, and nurture growth. The goal is not control but flourishing.

Why should we imagine God as less relational than the best human relationships?

From a process-relational perspective, genuine love requires genuine freedom. If human beings are created with moral agency, then that agency cannot be an illusion. Our choices must matter. History must remain open. The future cannot be entirely predetermined.

This understanding resonates with numerous Qur'anic themes. The Qur'an repeatedly calls people to reflect, deliberate, choose, and act. It praises consultation (shura), moral striving (ijtihad), and the pursuit of justice. It presents human beings as God's vicegerents (khulafa') on earth, entrusted with responsibility rather than reduced to passive obedience.

Beyond Obedience

One of the most troubling consequences of conventional hakimiyya thinking is that it often reduces ethics to obedience.

The central moral question becomes: "What rule must I follow?"

A process-relational approach asks a different question:

"What course of action best promotes justice, compassion, human flourishing, and the common good in this situation?"

These are not identical questions.

A rule-centred approach can sometimes lead to rigid and harmful outcomes when circumstances change. A relational approach recognises that moral life is complex and that wisdom requires interpretation, dialogue, and contextual judgment.

This is not a rejection of revelation. Quite the opposite.

Revelation becomes a living guide rather than a frozen legal code. The Qur'an is understood as directing humanity towards ethical ideals rather than supplying timeless answers for every conceivable political, social, and technological challenge.

Why Fundamentalists Fear This Vision

Fundamentalist movements often portray themselves as defenders of divine authority.

In reality, what they frequently defend is a very particular human interpretation of divine authority.

Once a group claims that its understanding of Islamic law perfectly represents God's will, disagreement becomes dangerous. Debate is seen as rebellion. Diversity becomes a threat. Critical thinking appears suspect.

The language of hakimiyya can therefore become a tool for concentrating power in the hands of religious elites, political rulers, or ideological movements.

Ironically, the result is often less trust in God and more trust in human authorities who claim exclusive access to God's commands.

Process-relational Islam challenges this dynamic by emphasising intellectual humility. No human interpretation is final. No legal school is infallible. No scholar possesses God's perspective.

Every generation must continue the work of interpretation.

Toward a process-relational  and Compassionate Islam

The choice facing Muslims today is not between God's sovereignty and secular modernity.

The real choice is between two different understandings of God's sovereignty.

One imagines God as an all-powerful monarch whose will is imposed from above and whose human servants are expected to obey.

The other imagines God as the most profound source of love, creativity, wisdom, and transformation, continually inviting humanity toward greater justice and compassion.

The first model tends toward authoritarianism because it mirrors earthly empires.

The second tends toward democracy, pluralism, and ethical responsibility because it honours the dignity and agency that God has bestowed upon every human being.

If Muslims are serious about confronting extremism, authoritarianism, and political stagnation, they must move beyond inherited notions of divine control and rediscover a more relational understanding of God.

The future of Islamic thought may depend on recognising a simple but transformative truth: God's greatness is not demonstrated by controlling every aspect of creation. God's greatness is demonstrated by empowering creation to participate in the ongoing work of justice, mercy, and human flourishing.

That, perhaps, is a vision of divine sovereignty worthy of both God and humanity.

 

Recommended further reading :

1.      Healthy Muslim masculinity requires a different understanding of God

 

2.      Reasons Why I Value Process Thought

 

3.      Process Relational Theology and Islamic Feminist Thought: An Initial Exploration