Let’s discuss Al-Farabi’s political philosophy here because it is informative about the Muslim thinking that still prevails in the modern world.

Respect for Primary Sources

In all manners, a Muslim’s thought should reflect Islam’s primary sources, the Quran (the Holy Book) and Sunnah (the words and actions of the Prophet). Another extension to the primary sources is the actions of the Sahaba (the direct followers of the Prophet). When faced with any quandary, a Muslim has the responsibility to look towards the primary sources for the solution. First check the Quran for guidance, if the Quran is silent then look to Sunnah, and if Sunnah is also silent on the matter, look to the Sahaba, and if there is still silence, then use your wisdom to figure out a solution that best adheres to the spirit of the primary sources.
When it comes to the question of how to organize a polity, Al-Farabi looked to the primary sources. However, the Greek influence remained. The Greek influence is to make city-states. At the time of Al-Farabi, the Islamic world was under the Abbasid Caliphate. However, most cities and regions inside the caliphate ruled independently under the suzerainty of the Caliph. The Caliphate held little to no sway over domestic affairs and policies, and the cities and towns were at the mercy of their local rulers. The local rulers paid tribute to the Caliph in various ways including reading the ‘khutbah’ (Friday sermon) in the Caliph’s name to link the people to the center, which was in Baghdad in his case. The Caliph would usually be the one to appoint governors and local rulers to their positions.

The Virtuous City

Al-Farabi wanted to delineate how to structure these city-states to align them with Islam and Greek influences. He wrote Al-Madina Al-Fadila (The Virtuous City) to mimic Plato’s ideal state. He maintains that the ruler should be a philosopher king; one with the wisdom to know right and wrong and the authoritarian powers to exert influence over the people and policies. Al-Farabi maintained that people have a part to play in society, and each person has a part to play according to their role. The ruler, soldier, artisans, and laborers must perform their roles admirably. In a similar tone to the State of Nature, (a theory later developed by Hobbes), Al-Farabi warns people that the city-state is a dynamic and collaborative organism. The outside world is barbaric in two senses, first is the lack of physical security with no access to food, water, and other amenities; the second is the lack of intellectual and moral development, which can only develop in esoteric minds free from fears of barbarism, and the menial labors. The city-state provides man with physical security and the resources to develop morally and intellectually. This requires the different classes in the city to work together, each in their role. Plato’s rationalism continues. Knowledge and moral development are central to prosperity. Rationalism is the source of knowledge as practiced by the philosopher king. A philosopher king needs a city-state to perform their duty. Al-Farabi combines Plato and Aristotle when he says that the purpose of the state is to enable individuals to achieve spiritual and intellectual perfection, which then leads to true happiness. For context, Plato thought that the purpose of the state is for individuals to play their respective roles to achieve justice and harmony. Aristotle claimed that the purpose of the state is to help individuals achieve Eudaimonia. Al-Farabi put the two together. The state is necessary for individuals to reach their perfect form by allowing them to fulfill their roles protected from barbarism; the state also frees the esoteric minds from menial labor allowing them to aim for the higher calling of Eudaimonia. Many philosophers sought to divide Islamic thought into its esoteric and exoteric portions. Al-Farabi made the same distinction: Everyone does not and should not know about Aristotle’s First Cause or the fact that God is outside of time. This is esoteric knowledge, intended for the few who can digest this information without upending their belief in God. This practice remains to this day, where some elites recommend that average Muslims should put their heads down and not seek this higher level of knowledge and take the Quran as literal, citing that this higher knowledge is not suitable or necessary for the average mind. To summarize, the ideal state protects humans from outside elements and allows esoteric activities to happen that lead to Eudaimonia. What or who will make this possible?

The Philosopher King

In Muslim thought, all humans have one role model. The Prophet was a child, a spouse, a father, a family member, a diplomat, a trader, an educator, a military strategist, a policy maker, and a political leader. Al-Farabi took all the traits that the Prophet had as a political leader and bunched them into the box of philosopher king, the simplest solution. Al-Farabi calls the philosopher king “Raisul Awwal” which translates to the First Ruler alluding to the Prophet. Raisul Awwal is both a political leader and a philosopher; one who understands the universe and uses wisdom to govern and lead the state; one who understands how divine principles lead to human flourishing. The goal of Raisul Awwal is not to rule, but to shepherd the people towards Eudaimonia, which Al-Farabi calls Sa’ada.
Al-Farabi provided a list of qualifications for the Raisul Awwal. They are tame and predictable and summarized into the following list, Virtue, Morality, Knowledge, Wisdom, Intellect, Physical Health, Diplomacy, Leadership, Astuteness, and Discipline. Later on, Al-Farabi figured out that expecting all of these qualities in one individual is farfetched in the Muslim World where power is the only real currency. In addition, no single ruler held sway over the entire city. Instead, the rich and the powerful constituted city councils. First Al-Farabi relaxed the qualifications that having half of the list is enough. Then he further relaxed the qualifications that as long as these qualifications exist among the council, collectively they will be able to embody the role of the philosopher king.

Why does Al-Farabi think this way?

The practice of requiring certain character traits survives to this day. The Pakistani constitution requires the Prime Minister and President to be Sadiq (Truthful) and Ameen (Honest). If a Prime Minister or a President is provably dishonest, they are removed from office with the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif being a prime example. Al-Farabi thinks in these terms because of the Greek influence of enumeration and categorization. Would it not be sublime if we had a 12-point checklist for each bureaucratic and political position that allows us to objectively confirm or reject a person from coming into power and responsibility? Al-Farabi’s proposed qualities of the Raisul Awwal are exactly that, a checklist. The problem in implementing such a system is the irony that to implement such a checklist, you need to have power. Practically, the Arab world had many tribes per city, who ruled like a committee. They shared the power to implement such a checklist and remove the figurehead if any conditions were unmet. The decisions on the checklist will be subjective. There is no framework for compromise. How do you compare two rulers that are otherwise the same but one of them is disciplined but not astute, and the other is astute, but not disciplined?
Al-Farabi is not alone here. Just as science uses enumeration to identify the characteristics of a tree, philosophers throughout history have used reason to enumerate the ideal characteristics of a political ruler. However, do you think it is possible to have an objective criteria, a one-size-fits-all solution? I prefer Aristotle’s position to Al-Farabi’s position. We can adopt virtues and hope for the best. We can identify virtuous people intuitively and choose them to lead us. If we are wrong, we learn from our mistakes. Ideally, we should have a ruler with all the best qualities for all situations. However, Romans were more practical. Times of peace need rulers with a strong sense of democracy and expertise in policy-making. Times of war need a strong and disciplined ruler to unite and guide the polity in war. Times of economic hardships and times of plenty each have their own requirements. The Muslim thought has at its center the Prophet who could do everything in the best way. Naturally, that leads to the idea that a philosopher king embodying all the best abilities and qualities should rule. However, practically we see that great rulers of history all petered away. In times of trouble, prominent people rise to the occasion. Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and Indira Gandhi found their country and improved its conditions. Then times change, and these rulers find themselves in a new country where their old instincts and policies do not work, and these once popular rulers lose the vote and the favor of the people. The US has the pragmatic solution of limiting the terms of presidents, which has the secondary benefit of preventing any president from outlasting their usefulness. However, the modern world has rejected Al-Farabi. Ironically, it leads heavily towards Plato’s concept of people having different roles. A President does not need to be the master of everything or have knowledge of everything. A President needs an institute that deals with all the military strategies, an institute responsible for educating the people, an institute responsible for managing healthcare, an institute to manage the financial health of the polity, and so on. We call them ministries. A President himself could be illiterate, yet have a ministry of education with a remarkable literacy rate. A President might not be able to spell fiscal responsibility yet rule a state that improves its debt situation. Enumeration and classification take us away from our intuition. They give us a false sense of security that somehow these 12 points on a checklist fully explain the ideal reality. Instead, reality is dynamic and full of compromises. Even if I surrender the point that we can make checklists for ideal rulers, how do you know that the checklist is complete? Why could there not be another point that you missed? However, even if enumeration and classification are not a perfect solution for appointments, what options do we have? Not many, but we do have some good ones. In the US, the President makes an appointment for an important position such as an ambassador or a senior military officer. That person appears before the Senate, which can accept or refuse the appointment for any number of subjective arguments, there is no objective checklist like Al-Farabi suggests.

Islam and Delegation

Small clarification, delegating tasks is not un-Islamic, quite the opposite. The early Muslim world was heavily decentralized where the Prophet and the Caliphs appointed governors to rule in their stead hundreds or thousands of kilometers away. There are multiple written and well-documented examples of the Prophet’s administration and the effective delegation of different tasks to different people based on their merits and utilizing people in the best role that suits them. The early Muslim world had a functioning and thriving bureaucracy expanding thousands of kilometers. However, Al-Farabi was influenced by Plato’s concept of a philosopher king to favor a single authoritarian ruler over the modern conception of ministries.

The Wisdom of Al-Farabi’s Checklist

Should the US President be physically astounding? Al-Farabi could argue that with all else being equal, a 6’ 4” President is better than a 5’ 4” president. A physically fit and active President is better than an obese, lethargic president. What requirements should we put on a ruler? Al-Farabi presents a good set of 12 qualities as a base. Pakistan’s constitution requires a Prime Minister to be at least 25 years old, and a President to be at least 40 years old. Both have to be Muslim. The US Constitution requires the president to be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen. These requirements are beneficial. They ensure better people go into positions of power and responsibility. They are statistically significant and affect how well a person does their job. However, when, where, and why do you draw a line? Should there be a weigh-in and a height check before the elections? Should the US President be a devout Christian? Should the US President be under the age of retirement? Should the US President not have living children? Should the US President not have a spouse? There is an argument that a childless and spouseless President is better because of the lack of distraction and less security risk. There is also the argument that a childless and spouseless president will be cold and distant from the plight of the people. Which argument is correct? I will argue that humans work better in balance instead of experimenting with extreme personalities in the name of expediency. However, this is a subjective conclusion. These checklists and requirements exist for all administrative, military, and bureaucratic positions. Al-Farabi and the US system combined constitute an elegant solution. Exemplary attributes such as being astute, disciplined, physically fit, and more serve as a basis. However, instead of applying these objectively, a senate-like body makes an intuitive decision on an appointment, accepting or rejecting it. There is the risk that the councils making these decisions tend to gatekeep and become a tool for repression and selective appointments. You win some lose some.

Classification of States

Like Aristotle, Al-Farabi also talked about classifying states, such as Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monarchy. For Al-Farabi, any state that does not fulfill the criteria of his ideal state, (a state with leadership having all of the required qualities to ensure Sa’ada), that state is imperfect. There are degrees of imperfect states. Madina al-Jahiliyya or an Ignorant State focuses on material pleasures, power, and wealth. These states do not know about Sa’ada or how to achieve it. There is no serious attempt towards or belief in spirituality or a higher purpose beyond the material. Most of the current states of the world fall into this category. Madina al-Dalla or an Erring State is one whose citizens and leaders have some awareness of virtue and a higher spiritual calling but they pursue false paths to happiness. This characterizes other ideas about statehood that have a basic sense that there is a higher calling but cannot actualize it. These refer to other religions that aim for the same goal but make practical mistakes. This also refers to other philosophers like Plato who have noble goals but they make wrong practical conclusions about how to get there. Plato thought the answer lay in the Noble Lie and a class system, later in Laws created through wisdom and justice. Aristotle thought the answer lay in the compromise of the Polity. Catholics think the answer lies in seeking forgiveness and salvation through Jesus’ sacrifice. The Communists thought the answer lay in the class system. Madina Al-Fasiqa or a Wicked State recognizes virtue but consciously rejects it. They pursue corruption, tyranny, and hedonism. They distort and misuse the higher truths. These refer to leaders and citizens who knowingly prioritize material gains, social status, and power for their selfish desires and designs. These states know what the right thing is, but reject it out of expediency, personal gain, or even foreign policy. Examples are the United States and its policies towards Guantanamo Bay. The US knows it is wrong, it recognizes what virtue is, but for the sake of expediency, it sacrifices those ideals and sets up black sites in foreign territories to protect them from effective oversight. I am unsure whether to classify the US as Madina Al-Fasiqa or Madina Al-Jahiliyya. What is the criterion? Does a state need to reject its own understanding of virtue or Al-Farabi’s concept of virtue to be classified as a Madina al-Fasiqa? Since the US does not accept Sa’ada, it lacks knowledge of how to attain true happiness, thus making it a Madina Al-Jahiliyya. However, I lean more towards the idea that there is no functional difference between the understanding of virtue between the US and Al-Farabi. At the very least, there is a 99% overlap. (I am only talking about functional differences, not eschatological). The US institutes know lobbying is wicked, they know it is wrong to influence elections, they know it is wrong to have extra-judicial killings; they know that spying is illicit. However, for personal wealth, national interests, national security, and expediency, we get lobbying, black sites, CIA, backroom deals, and more. Thus making the US a Madina Al-Fasiqa. Lastly, there is another point of contention. The word “Madina” in Madina Al-Fasiqa refers to a city and the US is considerably larger than a city. However, I expand the definition of Madina in this context to states in general, not to confine Al-Farabi’s classifications to city-states only.

Conclusion

Al-Farabi’s political thoughts take influence from Islam by having a ruler that can do everything and hence tries to enumerate the qualities of such a ruler and treat those qualities as a checklist of requirements. The goal of such a ruler is mostly the same as that of Aristotle and Plato, to organize a polity in search of a higher calling through reason.