(408)

THE NORMS FOR SELECTION OF THE FUNCTIONARIES

The progress of a society very much depends on the organization of the State on proper lines, be it a monarchy or a democracy for that matter. Whether it is Islamic or otherwise. When there is good law and order in a state and respect for the human rights, it is a well-managed welfare state. All this depends on the wisdom and sagacity of the head of the state and the capability and efficiency of the functionaries of the state. These functionaries provide efficient administration and make the people law-abiding citizens of the state. All these functionaries are appointed to the various provinces of the state at the discretion of the head of the state. If it is an Islamic state, the functionaries will be responsible for efficient collection of the zakat and jizyah in addition to the other duties like law and order, dispensation of justice to the people etc.

This is a fact that the people take inspiration from their administrators. They adopt the way their administrator follows. If the administrator in an Islamic state is pious and follows all the tenets properly, the people too try to emulate him. If the administrator is selfish, corrupt and ill mannered, the people in that area will also behave in that manner. Therefore, it is imperative that maximum care is exercised to select administrators after proper screening of their dossiers.

Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) used to judge his functionaries on the basis of their piety, honesty and capability to perform the function assigned to them. He gave key positions only to persons with immaculate honesty, nobility and straightforwardness. Ibn `Abd al-Barr writes:

“`Ali (a.s) appointed only those persons as the governors of provinces who were trustworthy and honest.”[1]

He never considered the family background, the tribe to which the person belonged and the recommendations of important persons for appointment as functionaries of the state. He used to instruct these functionaries not to retain

(409)

any person on the basis of recommendations. Therefore, he said on one occasion:

“Do not accept any recommendation for retaining personnel; only consider that they are trustworthy and honest.”[1]

Among the functionaries of the `Ali (a.s) there were some Hashemites as well. Among them were the sons of `Abbas; `Abdullah, `Ubaydullah and Qathm. Some people started thinking that he had retained them because of his close relationship with them. They said that if `Uthman had favored Banū-Umayyah as functionaries of state, what was wrong? The question is whether these functionaries were honest, just and capable of performing the assignment entrusted to them. But `Uthman’s functionaries were conceited, ill behaved and absolutely incapable of good administration. If he had placed persons who were men of piety, honest and capable, the criticism of nepotism would not have been leveled. The persons whom `Ali (a.s) appointed were above criticism as far as their honesty, piety and capability were concerned. Just because of the relationship with the caliphs, putting the functionaries of both the administrations on the same level is not justifiable. This comment would be justifiable if the Hashemite functionaries were appointed all over as the Umayyad functionaries were predominantly all over the realm during `Uthman’s caliphate. During `Ali’s period there were only a few Hashemites in important positions and their antecedents were immaculate. Was no Hashemite deserving of any important position? If they were capable, keeping them away from assignments just because they were Hashemite was no justice. It is surprising that over a period of twenty-five years after the Prophet (a.s) no Hashemite is seen in any important position of the state! `Ali’s yardstick for appointment of any person was his piety, capability and character. If the person did not measure up to these requirements he would not consider him fit for the assignment, be he a Hashemite, Muhajir or Ansar! If any functionary were found committing an impropriety, he would not be spared of the punishment, whosoever he was.