(136) States, whether big or small, are either sovereign and independent or part-sovereign and non-sovereign. In international law, no notice is taken of the last of these kinds. The real criterion of independence, as far as international law is concerned, is the right  to foreign relations. If this right is absolute, we call it sovereignty and independence, if the right is qualified and restricted, but not abnegated and extinguished, we have a case of part-sovereign State; and if the right does not exist, it will be a non-sovereign State. Apart from this real test, there are other requisites of independence which we shall describe presently.

(137) it is, however, to be noted that the form of government has nothing to do with independence. A State may be a republic with elected heads, or a monarchy with hereditary succession. Even with hereditary succession, the Islamic institution of (Arabic type) or (bai'ah or oath of allegiance) which has been in vogue ever since the time of the Prophet, some sort of social contract and expression of popular will is present. The Prophet assumed authority through Divine commission; nevertheless every adherent to his authority had to pay him homage and allegiance either personally or through representatives. When the Prophet died, and the Divine connection, through revelation, ceased to exist, the question of succession arose. Three propositions were made, vis., hereditary succession, popular election and diarel. The Prophet left no male issue, and his nearest kin were a step-uncle and several cousins (uncle's sons) of whom one was also his son-in-law. As for diarchy, it was the proposal of some of the original inhabitants of Medina, called the Ansar, who said: "Let there be one ruler from amongst us and another from amongst you the Meccans (Arabic type); and apparently both the ruler's had to rule conjointly since it was not possible to divide the territory (or at least it implied the division of jurisdictions of the two rulers according to persons concerned [and] not places).

(138) Strict hereditary succession, in the form of the right of the eldest son, does not seem to have ever taken deep root in the Islamic polity. The Orthodox Caliphate was not hereditary. According to the Shi'ite doctrine, Caliph 'Ally is said to to have nominated his son al-Hasan to succeed him. This precedent was followed by Muawiyah, who  later nominated his son as his successor. Even in case of such hereditary succession, normally the oath of allegiance as heir apparent or heir designate was obtained, since it was not considered a right, but only a suggestion to the public, and as such requiring a contract with the public home the heir designate was to govern in future. The succession of the son is not necessary (primogeniture has never been recognized in Muslim constitutional law). Among the Umaiyad and Abbasid's brothers or cousins  frequently succeeded even the presence of sons. The Ottoman Turks had the jury's role of presuming the eldest member of the royal family as heir. In the Mogul empire of India, more often than not, the sword and capability decided the issue. The case of Radiyah Sultanag of India (1236 to 40) is almost unique a case of succession of the daughter in the presence of several sons.

(139) We may conclude from this and the Orthodox Opinion that either the domination by the reigning person of his successor or, failing this, a general election by the Pillars of the State (Arabic type) is the rule Islam has accepted whether the nomination is that of the oldest son or not.

(140) it In short, [the] form of government and succession to power are immaterial for an independent state. It remains, however, to see what is Independence and what is State.

Independence

(141) Independence is defined by Ibn Khaidun as (Arabic type) [the non-existence of any (external) power to enforce its will upon him i.e., an independent sovereign]. In other words, it is the right of a State to administer all its internal and external affairs in such a way that it is neither controlled nor interfered with by any foreign power.

(142) The right of the State to freedom of action is but a reflection and prolongation of the original freedom of every man. (Arabic type). This freedom to conduct State affairs is only relatively complete. Absolute independence has never existed and is nowhere found in human society. There are natural impediments testifying to the Omnipotence of God and weakness of man; there are correlative and reciprocal restrictions such as the respect of equal rights of others; these are contractual limitations of one's liberty, no matter whether accepted originally under force or with mutual will; and there are tacit acquiescences of unilateral declarations if there is no power to resist.

(143) International law cannot apply without the existence of more independent States than one at the same time. As [a matter of] fact several independent States have simultaneously existed since time immemorial, yet the right of this coexistence was not easily conceded to in the civilizations of bygone days. The Greeks were told by their national philosophers that Nature had intended the non-Greeks to be slaves of the Greeks. The Romans, although they never ruled even one-thirtieth of the world, believed that they were lords of the earth. The world was regarded as belonging only to Romans (orbis Romanus), and the Romans were designed as the princeps orbis terrariun populus (lords of the population of the globe of earth). Obviously, so long as religions were national, there was no possibility of conceding equality to others, even where they capitulated. The Jewish law, for instance, insisted:

"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that be found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make peace with thee, but will make war against thee, thou shall besiege it; and when the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt to thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of the people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites and the Amorjites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusitess; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. (Further, Joshua, vi. 21: "ci. 21; And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." And again (Samuel xv 3): "Now go and smite Amale, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but for both man and woman, infant and suckling ox and sheep; camel and ass.") 

(145) Yet this did not mean that in the meanwhile they acknowledged no rights to people outside [of] their jurisdiction. The Qur'an enjoins peace with those who do not want to fight, and the scrupulous respect of treaty is concluded with non-Muslims. And iis emphatic on the point that the world belongs to God and He gives His viceregency to whomever He wills.

States

(146) States have existed in human society since time immemorial and not much has changed in the essentials of their functions; and the State officials from the head to the lowest, have proportionately exercised more or less authority over the commoners, and even the lower State officials in their private capacity. The question of the origin of authority however, is a disputed question in different schools of thought . Some trace it to the collective will of the political group, [whereas] some claim Divine gift or even Divine incarnation.

(147) So far as Islam is concerned, the classical authors have been unanimous in that it is a delegation of Divine authority, through the intermediary link of the Messengers or Prophets who receive Divine revelation. It may be called a theocracy though not in the same sense as the modern West. A few typical quotations from the Qur'an will elucidate the point:

(a) "Lo! The earth is God's. He giveth it for an inheritance to whom He will." (VII 128)

(b) "And then thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth." (II 30).

(c) "[And God said to him:] 0 David! Lo! We have set thee as a viceroy in the earth." (II 30).

(d) "Say: 0 God! Owner of Sovereignty!  (mulk) Thou givest Sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. In Thy hand is the good. Lo! Thou art Able to do all things (III 26).

(148) As already remarked, States have existed before the philosophers and political scientists. I need not dilate on the minute  discussions of what is a State according to Muslim scholars, what are the essentials of the Khilafat or the viceregency of God, and allied questions which might more appropriately be discussed in the history of Muslim political thought. Here it suffices to emphasize three points: (1) acknowledgement of the existence of more than one Independent State at a time; (2) acknowledgement of different non-Muslim States as separate entities, and not as one block.

(149) Radiyud-Din as-Sarakhsiy records the opinion of Abu Yusuf and ash-Shaibaniy in the following words: (Arabic type)
[They both maintain: a territory is related to its people on account of their controlling hand over it and their establishing protective authority therein.]

And earlier author, Shams al-A'immah as-Sarakhsiy (cf. Shar as-Siyar al-Kabir IV, 202) is even more explicit: [Arabic type]
["The non-Muslim peoples belong to different States, each according to its resisting power" to remain independent of others.]

(149 b) Regarding the second point, the diversity even of Muslim States, it is to be pointed out that, though is essentially Muslims constitute but one "nation," yet not all the Muslims ever lived in Islamic territory, strictly speaking. Even the Qur'an refers to it several times: 

(a) "It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless it be by the state. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood-money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you and he is a believer, then that penance is to set free a believing slave. And, if he cometh forth of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and also a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from God. God is Knower, Wise.

(b) "How should ye not fight for the cause of God and the feeble among men and women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out of this town of which the people are all oppressors! Oh! Give us from Thy presence some defender. . . They will answer: In what were ye engaged? They will say: We were oppressed in the land. They will retort: Was not God's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein?"

(Arabic type)

[The distinguishing factor between the Muslim and non-Muslim territory is the difference of authority and administration. This same is true of the different principalities even within the Islamic territory which are distinguished from one another by is the domination and execution of authority [i.e. Jurisdiction).]

Grouping of States

(152) A few words seem to be called for in order to take cognizance of some modern precedents and practices. The great majority of land inhabited by Muslims had fallen one after the other, during the last few centuries, to non-Muslim domination, particularly to Dutch, Russian, French and English conquerors. The awakening of political consciousness among the masses and the Providential aid of circumstances have recently procured to them a gradual emancipation. The Dutch policy has proved least successful to retain the confidence of the Indonesians for long, and their separation was more complete than in the case of [the] former French or English colonies. The Russians have accorded several important rights to the "nationalities" under their yoke: the right of secession, foreign relations, separate army, etc. Although these rights are not very real, at the time of writing these lines (1977), the local freedoms may increase in the course of time. The French community had recognized international sovereignty to most of its Muslim colonies, which had even entered the UNO in 1960, although military bases, economic obligations, and other shackles had rendered the independence far from real. The British Commonwealth seems to have ceded most of the substance of the independence to its former dependencies, whose right to secession seems to be very real. That some Muslim sovereign States voluntarily and in all freedom consent to remain inside a non-Muslim Union, Community of Commonwealth, is a phenomenon unknown to antiquity. Perhaps the headship of the Commonwealth will rotate one day among its component members and not remain vested exclusively in the person of the ruler of the United Kingdom. Anyhow, these associations may not be confounded with membership of the League of Nations or of the present United Nations. In other words, a voluntary subordinate collaboration does not seem to be considered as vitiating the sovereignty of a State. The attempts at the so-called neo-colonialism are not negligible, and apparently it will take some generations before the inhabitants of these States get rid of the complexes and demoralizing effects of the policy of former colonial masters in all fields: intellectual, moral, economical and others, not the least of the artificial disorder created for the purpose of dividing in order to rule.

(153) We have seen that an independent State can be immune from foreign intervention. It may briefly be dealt with.

Intervention

(154) Independence gives the right of immunity from external interference. But rights and obligations are correlated to each other. Community requires abstention also from intervening in others affairs. Yet there are times when intervention is justified. (1) in self-defence, (2) in preventing and evil worse than meddling into others affairs.

(155) To intervene in self-defence may amount to retaliation or repudiation of the existing treaty for which sanction is forthcoming both in the Qur'an and the practice of the Prophet. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a punitive act and an intervention. Coercion or threat of coercion, naked or veiled, lies at the root of intervention; and an unwilling submission on the part of the subject of intervention is necessary. Once some Christian subjects had fled from Muslim territory and [had] taken refuge in a Byzantine region. The Caliph Umar's intervention was the reason of their repatriation by the Byzantine Emperor.

(156) Intervention on the ground of humanity, in the path of God, as the Muslim authors call it, is not unknown; it the even upheld as the very first duty of the Muslim.

Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct, and forbid indecency; and the believe in God." (Qur'an III 118)

"And let there be a people from among you who invite to do goodness, and the enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency. Such are they who are successful.

"Whoever from among you sees an indecency (munkar), let him change it by his hand (i.e. by force); if he cannot, let him do that by his tongue; if he cannot, let him do that by his heart (through disapproval, prayer to God, etc.), but this last would testify to the extreme weakness of Faith."

(158) Muslim jurists maintained that intervention by a Muslim State even in another Muslim State is necessary if the latter sets aside some significant command of the Shariah. Publicly despising of the Orthodox Caliphs by some of the Shi'ites was also one of the authorized grounds to the Sunnis for intervention; it was considered to amount to apostasy.

(159) We must distinguish between intervention on the one hand and protest advice, good offices, mediation and arbitration on the other. Mere protest, falling short of any active interference to rectify the act done, is but an expression of feeling. In advice, friendly suggestion is standard in all good-faith without any sanction behind it to carry it out. By good offices and mediation, we understand the act of maintaining contact with both the conflicting parties and providing them both with a means of negotiation and pacific settlement. In arbitration, both the conflicting parties place their case in the hands of a referee whose award they previously agreed to execute. In none of them, is there coercion or forceful carrying out of one's will which is so essential to intervention.