Why Do We Have Bad Rulers?

We often hear the chicken or the egg question: do we have bad rulers because we are bad, or are we bad because we have bad rulers?

The answer is that the causal relationship is bidirectional. In other words, both perspectives hold partial truth.

Scriptural texts and historical precedents can be found in support of each position. Consequently, any approach that emphasizes only one side, whether it be the need to rectify leadership or the imperative of spiritual self-improvement, offers an incomplete solution.

One group frequently cites verses such as “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” (Qur’an 13:11), insisting that unless our masajid are filled at fajr, we neither deserve nor should expect a revival of the Caliphate. This camp places the burden of transformation almost entirely on personal piety and ritual observance.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, another group contends that the primary, if not sole, cause of the moral and spiritual decline within the Muslim world lies in the corruption and misrule of our political leaders.

Both camps, however, are mistaken in their exclusivity, and their rhetoric risks alienating many sincerely inquiring individuals.

Regarding the first camp, they overlook that fulfilling ritual obligations is only one aspect of our religious duties. Equally important is the collective obligation (fard kifāyah) to promote Allah’s Sharī’ah’s supremacy, instill public confidence in it, and cultivate a yearning for its re-establishment within the Ummah. Our collective failure to pursue these aims constitutes a communal sin. Unless we “change” by taking concrete steps toward fulfilling these neglected duties, we will continue to suffer under secular and autocratic regimes.

This group also tends to dismiss reports highlighting rulers’ moral influence over their subjects.[1] It is, therefore, naïve to ignore the corrupting influence of tyrannical leadership when those in power actively distort educational curricula and facilitate the spread of munkar.

Furthermore, a substantial body of authentic aḥādīth attributes the Ummah’s decline to the failure to physically confront munkar, a duty that falls squarely upon rulers and those in authority. Are we to simply disregard these narrations? Certainly not.

As for the second camp, they are guilty of overstatement. It is intellectually and theologically dishonest to blame all spiritual decay on political leadership, particularly when rulers are not actively preventing individuals from fulfilling their obligations. In truth, many of us succumb to our desires and search for convenient scapegoats. We must acknowledge that our personal neglect of core obligations plays a significant role in our condition. It should not surprise us if divine assistance is withheld until we take ownership of this fact.

I do not advocate for reconciliation between opposing views merely for the sake of “peace” or superficial unity. I find such forced conciliations distasteful. But in this case, the truth is self-evident: both camps articulate aspects of the truth, and a principled synthesis between their perspectives is necessary. Without it, many people will remain alienated by the rigidity and incompleteness of both messages.

---

[1] Narrated Qais bin Abi Hazim: Abu Bakr went to a lady from the Ahmas tribe called Zainab bint Al-Muhajir and found that she refused to speak. He asked, "Why does she not speak." The people said, "She has intended to perform Hajj without speaking." He said to her, "Speak, for it is illegal not to speak, as it is an action of the pre-islamic period of ignorance. So she spoke and said, "Who are you?" He said, "A man from the Emigrants." She asked, "Which Emigrants?" He replied, "From Quraish." She asked, "From what branch of Quraish are you?" He said, "You ask too many questions; I am Abu Bakr." She said, "How long shall we enjoy this good order (i.e. Islamic religion) which Allah has brought after the period of ignorance?" He said, "You will enjoy it as long as your Imams keep on abiding by its rules and regulations." She asked, "What are the Imams?" He said, "Were there not heads and chiefs of your nation who used to order the people and they used to obey them?" She said, "Yes." He said, "So they (i.e., the Imams) are those whom I meant." [Saheeh al-Bukhari, Book 63, Hadith 59]

Ibn Shabbah in his Tarikh al-Madina relays the following with a Saheeh chain:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أَيُّوبَ الْهَاشِمِيُّ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، قال:كَانَ عُمَرُ، رضي الله عنه، يَمْنَعُ أَمْدَادَ أَهْلِ الْيَمَنِ، وَيَنْهَى النَّاسَ أَنْ يَشْتَرُوا مِنْهُمْ شَيْئًا مِمَّا يَمْنَعُهُمْ بِهِ، فَعَثَرَ عَلَى مَالِكِ بْنِ عِيَاضٍ مَوْلاهُ وَقَدِ اشْتَرَى مِنْهُمْ شَيْئًا مِمَّا مَنَعَهُمْ مِنْهُ، فَضَرَبَهُ بِالدِّرَّةِ وَقَالَ: مَا حَمَلَكَ عَلَى أَنْ تَشْتَرِيَ مِنْهُمْ شَيْئًا مِمَّا نَهَيْتُ النَّاسَ عَنْهُ؟ قال سَالِمٌ: فَاعْتَذَرَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ أَحْفَظْهُ، وَقَالَ: فَعَلاهُ عُمَرُ، رضي الله عنه، ضَرْبًا بِالدِّرَّةِ، ثُمَّ تَحَافَزَ مِنْ ضَرْبِهِ بِالدِّرَّةِ فَأَخَذَ بِرَأْسِهَا ثُمَّ ضَرَبَهُ بِجِلادِهَا، ثم قال: لا أَعْلَمُ أَحَدًا مِنْ آلِ عُمَرَ أَتَى شَيْئًا مِمَّا نَهَيْتُ النَّاسَ عَنْهُ إِلا ضَاعَفْتُ لَهُ الْعُقُوبَةَ، فَإِنَّمَا أَعْيُنُ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكُمْ كَأَعْيُنِ الطَّيْرِ إِلَى اللَّحْمِ، فَإِنِ انْتَهَيْتُمُ انْتَهَوْا، وَإِنِ رَتَعْتُمْ رَتَعُوا

Abū Ayyūb al-Hāshimī narrated to us, he said: Ibrāhīm ibn Sa‘d narrated to us, from his father, from Sālim, who said: ‘Umar — may Allah be pleased with him — used to prohibit the reinforcements (i.e., supplies) coming from the people of Yemen, and he would forbid people from buying anything from them that he had prohibited. Then he came upon Mālik ibn ‘Iyāḍ who had bought something from them that ‘Umar had prohibited. So, he struck him with a whip and said: "What made you buy something from them which I had forbidden the people from buying?" Sālim said: He offered some excuse which I do not recall. So ‘Umar struck him again with the whip. Then, dissatisfied with the severity of his strikes, he gripped the head of the whip and struck him with the flat side of it. Then he said: "I do not know of anyone from the family of ‘Umar who commits something I have forbidden the people from doing except that I will double the punishment for him. Indeed, the eyes of the people are upon you like the eyes of birds upon flesh. If you refrain, they will refrain; and if you indulge, they will indulge."

Since Umar b. Al-Khattab was the Caliph, he was worried about being perceived as giving special treatment to anyone.