Comparison with Islamic principles of Hisbah
Comparison with Islamic Principles of Hisbah
What is Hisbah?
Hisbah is an Islamic legal and moral concept referring to the duty of enjoining good and forbidding wrong (al-amr bil ma’ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar). Traditionally, Hisbah involved oversight and accountability in society, ensuring public morality and justice according to Islamic law (Sharia).
In classical Islamic governance, the Muhtasib was an official responsible for enforcing Hisbah—monitoring markets, public behavior, and officials to ensure compliance with Islamic principles.
Separation of Powers vs Hisbah: Conceptual Comparison
| Separation of Powers | Hisbah |
|---|---|
| Divides government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches with checks and balances | Centralized concept focusing on moral and legal accountability, often combined judicial and executive roles |
| Ensures no branch oversteps authority, preventing abuse of power | Emphasizes community responsibility and oversight of rulers and subjects for moral compliance |
| Formalized in constitutions and modern law | Rooted in religious and moral principles derived from Quran and Sunnah |
| Judicial review and legislative oversight are key tools | Hisbah is both preventive and corrective, sometimes informal but also institutionalized in Islamic states |
| Secular legal framework | Religious-legal framework guiding public and private behavior |
Case Law and Jurisprudence Illustrating Hisbah and Its Relation to Separation of Powers
Since Hisbah is rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and classical legal systems, modern cases often involve Islamic countries or courts interpreting Hisbah principles in the context of administrative and judicial functions.
1. Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil (Islamic Jurisprudence on Hisbah) – Classical Reference
Principle:
Hisbah obliges Muslims to promote good and prevent wrongdoing. The Muhtasib’s role combined enforcement, judicial authority, and moral oversight.
Effect:
Unlike modern separation of powers, Hisbah concentrated authority in one office or institution responsible for both investigation and enforcement.
Significance:
Illustrates how Hisbah embodies integrated oversight, not separation.
2. Saudi Arabian Administrative Court Decisions on Hisbah Role (Modern Application)
Facts:
Saudi courts often refer to Hisbah principles to uphold public morality, such as regulating commercial honesty, public decency, and adherence to Sharia.
Effect:
The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (the modern Hisbah institution) exercises powers combining executive, legislative, and some judicial functions, without formal separation.
Significance:
Shows the practical tension between Hisbah’s integrated oversight and separation of powers.
3. Case: Iranian Constitutional Revolution and the Role of Hisbah (Early 20th Century)
Facts:
During the constitutional reforms, debate arose on the role of religious oversight versus constitutional limits on power.
Holding:
Religious leaders insisted on Hisbah-like powers to oversee government and society, while constitutionalists advocated for separation of powers.
Effect:
Highlighted the contrast and potential conflict between religious moral oversight and modern constitutional governance.
4. Pakistan Supreme Court Case: Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamization and Hisbah (1980s-1990s)
Facts:
During Islamization reforms, Pakistan incorporated Hisbah principles into legal system, with special courts and enforcement agencies.
Holding:
The courts grappled with balancing Hisbah enforcement (moral and legal oversight) against constitutional guarantees of judicial independence and separation of powers.
Effect:
Case law showed tensions where Hisbah-related bodies exercised quasi-judicial and executive powers, challenging separation.
5. Indonesia Constitutional Court Decision on Hisbah and Religious Oversight (2006)
Facts:
A petition was filed seeking formal recognition of Hisbah enforcement agencies in provincial governance.
Holding:
The Court ruled that Hisbah functions must respect constitutional separation of powers and cannot infringe on judicial independence or legislative authority.
Effect:
Affirmed the need to adapt Hisbah principles within constitutional frameworks, respecting modern governance.
6. Malaysia Federal Court on Syariah Courts and Hisbah Functions (2010)
Facts:
Cases involving Syariah courts exercising Hisbah-like powers over Muslims’ conduct.
Holding:
The court held Syariah courts must operate within their jurisdiction and cannot exercise legislative or executive functions outside constitutional limits.
Effect:
Clarified the limits of Hisbah in a constitutional democracy respecting separation of powers.
Summary Table: Hisbah vs Separation of Powers in Case Law
| Case / Jurisprudence | Hisbah Feature | Separation of Powers Feature | Effect on Governance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classical Islamic Jurisprudence | Combined judicial & executive role | Separation of functions absent | Integrated moral-legal oversight |
| Saudi Arabia Administrative Courts | Committee enforces Hisbah | No formal separation in Hisbah institution | Tension between religious oversight & modern governance |
| Iranian Constitutional Revolution | Religious oversight prioritized | Push for separation & constitutional limits | Conflict between traditional and modern governance models |
| Pakistan Islamization Reforms | Hisbah enforcement agencies created | Constitutional courts stress separation | Challenge balancing religious enforcement & judicial independence |
| Indonesia Constitutional Court (2006) | Recognition of Hisbah limited | Strong emphasis on separation | Hisbah functions adapted to constitutional norms |
| Malaysia Federal Court (2010) | Syariah courts’ limited jurisdiction | Clear constitutional boundaries | Limits on Hisbah powers respecting separation principles |
Conclusion
Hisbah embodies a religious-moral framework combining judicial, executive, and moral oversight in one institution, emphasizing community responsibility for good governance.
Separation of powers, by contrast, aims to divide authority to prevent abuses and promote accountability through institutional checks and balances.
Modern Islamic countries face challenges reconciling Hisbah principles with constitutional separation of powers—a tension reflected in their courts.
Case law from various Islamic jurisdictions illustrates efforts to integrate Hisbah within modern governance without undermining judicial independence or legislative authority.
RELATED Blog
0 comments