A Critical Refutation of Sayyid Qutb’s Concept of Hakimiyya: Errors, Misinterpretations, and Its Impact

By Grace Mubashir, New Age Islam 25 January 2025 Sayyid Qutb's Doctrine Of Hakimiyya, As Much As It Stems From Legitimate Fears Regarding Governance And Morality, Is Flawed In Its Interpretation And Practice. By Selectively Interpreting Islamic Scriptures, Reducing Complicated Issues To Oversimplified Terms, And Embracing Nondemocratic Ideals, Qutb Created An Environment Conducive To Extremism And Violence. Major Points: 1. Sayyid Qutb’s concept of Hakimiyya, which asserts that sovereignty belongs exclusively to Allah and rejects governance not based entirely on Shari’a, has significantly influenced extremist ideologies. His interpretation redefines Jahiliyya to label societies governed by human-made laws as ignorant, justifying rebellion against secular governments and acts of terrorism. 2. Moderate scholars across the Islamic world, including South Asia, have extensively refuted Qutb’s ideas, highlighting theological errors and misinterpretations of Qur’anic texts. Thinkers like Abul Kalam Azad, Muhammad Iqbal, and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan argue for a dynamic, context-sensitive, and peaceful approach to governance rooted in Islamic principles such as Shura (consultation), Adl (justice), and Maslaha (public welfare). 3. They emphasize Islam’s adaptability, inclusivity, and its call for moral reform rather than coercion or confrontation. Qutb’s rigid framework ignores historical models like the Prophet Muhammad’s Charter of Medina, which demonstrated coexistence and pluralism. The concept of Hakimiyya has fuelled division and extremism, but by returning to Islam’s core values of justice, mercy, and wisdom, and through intellectual renewal and interfaith dialogue, such misinterpretations can be effectively countered. ------- (Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966) ------ Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966, a leading 20th-century Islamic intellectual and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, has had a significant impact on contemporary Islamist thought. One of his most controversial and lasting concepts is that of Hakimiyya (sovereignty), which he developed in his fundamental texts, most famously Milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq) and his commentary on the Qur'an, In the Shade of the Qur'an (Fi Zilal al-Qur'an). Hakimiyya teaches that sole sovereignty resides with Allah and that systems of man-made governance are always illegitimate. Though initially meant as a critique of secular rule and a call to get back to Islamic principles, Qutb's theory of Hakimiyya has been misused by terrorist organizations to promote violence and insurrection. The purpose of this article is to discuss Qutb's theory of Hakimiyya, the arguments presented, his understanding of Islamic scripture, and how it has been misinterpreted by terrorists to support their cause. The discussion will also involve a disproof of these extremist interpretations according to Islamic scholarship. 1. Understanding Hakimiyya: Qutb's Theory and Arguments Hakimiyya, derived from the Arabic root word Hukm (to judge or rule), refers to the sovereignty or governance of Allah over all aspects of life. For Qutb, this concept is not merely theological but profoundly political. He believed that the only legitimate law is Shari’a (Islamic law), and any form of governance not based on divine law is tantamount to Jahiliyya—a state of ignorance akin to pre-Islamic Arabia. Key Arguments of Hakimiyya 1. Sovereignty of Allah alone: Qutb believed that sovereignty is for Allah alone, in accordance with Qur'anic verses like: - "The choice is only for Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him." (Qur'an 12:40) - "And judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires." (Qur'an 5:49) Qutb understood these verses to indicate that only Allah can make laws, and humans cannot enact laws that go against divine will. 2. Rejection of Secularism: Qutb criticized secularism and man-made laws severely, regarding them as rebellions against Allah. He argued that democratic regimes, which grant authority to humans to make laws, naturally contradict the principle of Hakimiyya. 3. Jahiliyya as a Universal Condition: Qutb extended the concept of Jahiliyya to modern societies, arguing that even Muslim-majority states are in a state of ignorance if they do not fully implement Sharia. This redefinition of Jahiliyya allowed Qutb to denounce existing Muslim governments as illegitimate. 4. Divine Law as Freedom: According to Qutb, submission to the sovereignty of Allah is the highest expression of human freedom. For him, divine law shields man from the oppression of human systems and rulers. 2. Interpretation of Islamic Texts and Theological Underpinnings Qutb's case for Hakimiyya has its basis in selective interpretations of Islamic scriptures. Although his arguments appeal to some Qur'anic ideals, they tend to be decontextualized or overstated in order to defend his ideology. Key Textual Interpretations 1. Qur'anic Stress on Godly Authority: - Qutb understood passages such as Quran 6:57 ("The decision rests with none but Allah") as a clear denial of human legislative power. But classical scholars maintain that such passages establish Allah's final authority while permitting human rule within Islamic parameters. 2. The Role of Shari’a: - Qutb equated Shari’a with divine law in its entirety, ignoring the diverse interpretations and schools of thought within Islamic jurisprudence. For example, Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is a human effort to understand divine law, and classical scholars emphasized its flexibility to address societal needs. 3. Concept of Jahiliyya: - Qutb's extension of Jahiliyya to a universal condition was a deviation from classical Islamic thought, where it was used specifically to refer to the pre-Islamic era. Scholars such as Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi criticized Qutb's application of Jahiliyya on the grounds that it unfairly delegitimizes Muslim societies. 3. The Exploitation of Hakimiyya by Terrorist Organizations The radical interpretation of Hakimiyya has provided ideological fuel for extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and others. By invoking Qutb’s writings, these groups justify violence, rebellion, and even acts of terrorism against governments and civilians. Key Ways Terrorists Exploit Hakimiyya 1. Declaring Muslim Leaders as Apostates: - Extremist groups label Muslim rulers as apostates if they do not implement Sharia in its entirety, drawing on Qutb’s concept of Jahiliyya. This Takfir (excommunication) justifies rebellion against Muslim states. 2. Legitimizing Armed Jihad: - Hakimiyya is applied to contend that armed jihad has to be waged against un-Islamic regimes to bring about their overthrow and form a caliphate. For example, ISIS based its violent quest for an Islamic state on Qutb's works. 3. Denying Democracy and Secular Rule: - Terrorist ideologies argue that involvement in democratic processes is a type of shirk (making partners with Allah) because it gives humans the sovereignty. This has culminated in attacks on political leaders and democratic institutions. Sayyid Qutb’s concept of Hakimiyya represents a significant and controversial contribution to modern Islamist thought. While it offers a critique of secular governance and a call for divine sovereignty, its radical interpretations have been exploited by terrorist groups to justify violence and rebellion. However, mainstream Islamic scholarship provides robust refutations of Qutb’s ideas, emphasizing the flexibility, inclusivity, and ethical foundations of Islamic principles. In order to counter the abuse of Hakimiyya, there is a need to encourage moderate and reformist interpretations of Islam and to create a narrative that gives precedence to social justice, peace, and coexistence. It is only by countering extremist ideologies at their origin that Muslim societies can restore the authentic spirit of their faith and counter the ruinous legacy of radicalism. Hakimiyya: Flawed Concept Of Islamic State And Society Sayyid Qutb’s doctrine of Hakimiyya, which posits that sovereignty belongs exclusively to Allah, has been one of the most polarizing ideas in modern Islamic thought. While this concept is rooted in traditional Islamic theology, Qutb’s interpretation of Hakimiyya as a wholesale rejection of man-made governance systems and secular political structures has invited widespread criticism. This doctrine, as developed in his writings, particularly Milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq), has been co-opted by extremist groups as a theological foundation for rebellion, violence, and the rejection of pluralistic governance models. Qutb argued that any system not based entirely on his understanding of Shari’a constitutes Jahiliyya, or ignorance, and an affront to divine sovereignty. Though Qutb's ideology has influenced violent extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, there have been in-depth refutations of his propositions by classical as well as contemporary Islamic scholars. These scholars counter that Qutb's explanation of Hakimiyya is fraught with theological inaccuracies, misinterpretation of Qur'anic verses, and misunderstanding of the dynamic and comprehensive concepts of Islamic jurisprudence. The essay critically reviews the weaknesses of Qutb's interpretation of Hakimiyya, and points to the inaccuracies of his assertions, misinterpretation of the Islamic scriptures, and the negative impacts of implementing his thoughts. Citing abundantly from the classical and contemporary scholars, the critique illustrates how, in formulating Hakimiyya, the subject has become not only contradictory to Islamic ideas but also violative of the faith's moral and spiritual constructs. Flaws in Qutb's Concept of Sovereignty Qutb’s concept of Hakimiyya is built on the premise that divine sovereignty is fundamentally incompatible with any human governance system that is not explicitly based on his interpretation of Shari’a. While the notion of Allah’s ultimate sovereignty is an uncontested principle in Islamic theology, Qutb’s framing of this concept as a rejection of man-made laws oversimplifies the relationship between divine guidance and human agency. Historically, Islamic governance has always operated within a framework of balance between divine principles and human discretion. Imam Al-Shatibi, a renowned Andalusian jurist, argued in Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Shari’a that Shari’a is primarily concerned with achieving Maslaha (public welfare). He emphasized that the objectives of Shari’a are to preserve essential human interests, including religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property. These objectives, he asserted, can be fulfilled through a variety of governance mechanisms, as long as they align with the principles of justice and public welfare. Al-Shatibi’s view directly challenges Qutb’s rigid interpretation of divine sovereignty, which fails to acknowledge the flexibility and adaptability inherent in Islamic jurisprudence. Likewise, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has pointed out that Qutb's dismissal of democratic systems as un-Islamic is a misinterpretation of Islamic teachings. In his works, Al-Qaradawi stressed that although Allah is the final legislator, He has given humans the ability to exercise ijtihad (independent reasoning) to solve modern problems. Al-Qaradawi asserted that democratic systems, when based on justice and accountability, can be compatible with Islamic principles. This view underscores the pragmatic and moral aspects of governance, which Qutb's understanding of Hakimiyya overlooks. Furthermore, Qutb’s oversimplification of governance ignores the historical realities of Islamic governance. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, in his treatise Al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah, argued that the primary duty of governance is to ensure justice and public welfare, regardless of the specific political system employed. He famously stated that a just ruler, even if he does not implement every provision of Shari’a, is closer to Islamic principles than an unjust ruler who claims to do so. This pragmatic approach underscores the importance of ethical governance over rigid adherence to dogmatic interpretations, a nuance absent in Qutb’s writings. Mistakes in Qutb's Understanding of Islamic Writings One of the biggest faults of Qutb's theory of Hakimiyya lies in his decontextualized and selective interpretation of Qur'anic verses. For example, Qutb often times quoted Quran 5:44 ("And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers") and Quran 12:40 ("The decision is only for Allah") to propose that any system of governance that is not solely rooted in divine law is unlawful. Yet, classical and modern scholars have routinely indicated that these verses are not prescriptive blueprints for political systems but are rather ethical guidelines calling for justice and accountability. Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, an Egyptian scholar, countered Qutb's interpretation of these verses by asserting that they address the ethical and moral duty of governance, not a political prescription. Al-Ghazali believed that the Qur'anic prescription of governance is not prescriptive but principled in nature, accommodating human discretion and adaptability. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, an Islamic reformist and philosopher, also reasoned that the Qur'an gives only ethical principles for governing rather than a fixed model. Iqbal stressed creativity and contextual applicability of Islamic teachings, and he believed that the dynamic soul of Islam was not compatible with strict dogma. A second serious flaw in Qutb's interpretation is his reinterpretation of Jahiliyya as a global state of ignorance that applies to all non-Islamic systems, including Muslim states. This redefinition of Jahiliyya diverges sharply from its original connotation, which describes the moral and spiritual weaknesses of pre-Islamic Arabia. Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, an Islamic law professor, has accused Qutb of misusing the term Jahiliyya, claiming it promotes a binary and exclusionary worldview. According to Abou El Fadl, the Qur'anic notion of Jahiliyya relates to certain ethical failures and not to a blanket judgment of whole societies or systems of governance. This misreading not only twists the Qur'anic message but also erodes the inclusive and empathetic spirit of Islam. The Influence of Qutb's Ideology on Extremism Qutb's radicalization of thought has had profound and long-term impacts, especially within the sphere of extremist thought. Al-Qaeda and ISIS have incorporated Qutb's notion of Hakimiyya as a theological justification for their activities, applying it to legitimize rebellion, violence, and the creation of authoritarian rule. By conceiving all systems outside of Islam as expressions of Hakimiyyar and reducing man-made government to an equivalent of shirk (to attribute partners to Allah), Qutb's ideology has given extremists an easy but pernicious way of justifying their activities. One of the most destructive elements of Qutb's thought is its support for Takfir, or the rejection of other Muslims as apostates. Takfir has been condemned by scholars throughout the Islamic world. Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, a leading Mauritanian scholar, issued a warning against the perils of Takfir, insisting that it divides the Muslim community and leads to sectarianism. Bin Bayyah posited that Takfir is a serious issue that should not be indulged except in the most exigent situations, and even then, only by educated scholars. The destructive implications of Qutb’s ideas have been further compounded by their rejection of pluralism and coexistence. Dr. Mustafa Ceric, the former Grand Mufti of Bosnia, has argued that Qutb’s ideology is incompatible with the ethical and spiritual teachings of Islam. Ceric emphasized that Islam calls for the establishment of peace, justice, and compassion and that using religion as a justification for violence and exclusion represents a betrayal of its essence. This perspective underscores the need for a return to the inclusive and merciful teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, which stand in stark contrast to the divisive rhetoric of Qutb’s ideology. Islamic Alternatives to Extremism Moderate thinkers have suggested alternative governance frameworks compatible with Islamic norms yet responsive to modern realities. These frameworks focus on justice, inclusivity, and the ethical aspects of governance, a stark departure from Qutb's exclusionary and rigid doctrines of Hakimiyya. The Qur'an itself strongly emphasizes justice, as seen in verses like Qur'an 4:58: "Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice." This verse focuses on the ethical responsibilities of rulers, irrespective of the particular political regime in operation. Islamic jurisprudence also allows for ijtihad (independent reasoning) and Maslaha (public interest) to address societal needs. Imam Malik, one of the founders of Sunni legal schools, stated that Shari’a is meant to achieve the welfare of the people in both this world and the Hereafter. This flexibility and adaptability are essential for addressing the complexities of modern governance, a reality that Qutb’s rigid framework fails to accommodate. In South Asian context Another critique has emanated from South Asian scholars that has been made against Qutb's redescription of Jahiliyya. Traditionally, the term Jahiliyya meant the pre-Islamic period of moral ignorance in Arabia. Qutb extended it to all societies and their corresponding systems that failed to adopt his interpretation of Islam. Indian scholar Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer thinks that the very concept of Jahiliyya advocated by Qutb gives a boost to sectarianism and divisiveness. Engineer said that the ethical teachings of the Qur'an aim to reform societies through dialogue and gradual moral improvement, not through coercion or violence. The Impact of Qutb's Ideas on Extremism Qutb's ideas have profoundly influenced global extremism, including South Asian extremist ideologies. JMB, or the Bangladesh Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Indian Mujahideen, among others, have quoted Qutb and borrowed from his concept of Hakimiyya to justify their violent activities. They understand Hakimiyya as authorizing them to overthrow all secular governments and establish an Islamic state, often resorting to terrorism and rebellion. Perhaps one of the most harmful legacies of Qutb's ideology is its advocacy for Takfir-the excommunication of Muslims who do not subscribe to a particular interpretation of Islam. South Asian scholars have been vocal in their condemnation of this practice, arguing that it has been detrimental to Muslim unity. Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, a prominent Indian Islamic scholar, opposed the Takfiri approach of Qutb-inspired ideologies, pointing out that these approaches negated the tolerance and accommodation enshrined in Islam. According to him, the ultimate purpose of Islam was to raise human beings for their betterment on spiritual and moral planes, not to sharpen divisions over an idealized understanding of ideology. Theological and Practical Refutations Robust theological and practical refutations against Qutb's ideology were provided by moderate South Asian scholars, who always highlighted the consistency of Islamic principles with pluralistic and democratic systems. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan argues that Islam allows peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between communities, and he quoted the example of the Prophet Muhammad's governance in Medina, wherein Muslims, Jews, and other communities lived under a pluralistic charter that guaranteed religious freedom and justice. Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, a well-known South Asian Islamic law scholar, described the movement of Islamic jurisprudence to different political and social contexts. In his book The First Written Constitution in the World, Hamidullah analysed the charter of the Prophet that gave Medina as an example of governance which oscillates between divine guidance and human agency: This model is enough to refute the rigid and ostracised thinking on governance and administration of Qutb and his apostles. South Asian scholars have repeatedly highlighted alternative models of governance that are in tune with the spirit of Islam but not at odds with modernity. These models of governance are centred on justice, inclusivity, and ethical governance, which contrast sharply with Qutb's exclusionary and rigid doctrines. The Qur'anic injunctions on consultation (Shura), justice (Adl), and public welfare (Maslaha) form a base for the development of governance models that are both Islamic and pluralistic. For example, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan from India recommended non tense confrontation about social and political reform, with a focus on education, dialogue, and living peacefully. He insisted that genuine Islamic governance has nothing to do with imposing a theocratic state, but establishing justice, compassion, and ethically rooted values in society. In similar thought, Muhammad Iqbal felt that the principle of spiritual democracy should be based on integrating Islamic ethics into the mainstream modern political institutions while maintaining intellectual renewal and adaptability in ideas of Islam. Sayyid Qutb's idea of Hakimiyya, while based on a real concern with morality and governance, is fundamentally misconstrued in its interpretation and application. Through the decontextualisation of Qur'anic verses, the redefinition of Jahiliyya, and the rejection of pluralistic governance models, Qutb laid the foundation for extremism and violence. South Asian scholars have given convincing responses to his ideas based on Islamic principles of justice, inclusivity, and adaptability against the divisive rhetoric of Hakimiyya. By reclaiming the ethical and spiritual essence of Islam, these scholars offer a vision of governance that prioritizes peace, tolerance, and the collective welfare of humanity. Their work serves as a powerful reminder of Islam's rich intellectual tradition and its potential to address contemporary challenges in a spirit of compassion and wisdom. Conclusion Sayyid Qutb's doctrine of Hakimiyya, as much as it stems from legitimate fears regarding governance and morality, is flawed in its interpretation and practice. By selectively interpreting Islamic scriptures, reducing complicated issues to oversimplified terms, and embracing nondemocratic ideals, Qutb created an environment conducive to extremism and violence. Yet, as evidenced by classical Islamic scholars such as Abu Nasr al-Sarraj and Ibn Khaldun and contemporary Islamic scholars such as Fazlur Rahman, Islam has a rich, adaptable system of governance that emphasizes justice, mercy, and tolerance. A repudiation of Qutb's ideology is necessary not only to counter extremism but also to restore the moral and spiritual dimensions of Islam. Moderate scholars offer a necessary corrective to Qutb's misreads, reminding the global Muslim world of the peace, tolerance, and justice that are central to Islamic teachings. ----- A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Mubashir V.P is a PhD scholar in Islamic Studies at Jamia Millia Islamia and freelance journalist. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islam-terrorism-jihad/critical-refutation-sayyid-qutb-hakimiyya-misinterpretations/d/134431 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism