The same is true of political philosophy. According to the 1984 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: 'Political philosophy and political conflict have evolved basically around who should have power over whom.' (14/697).

For five thousand years, eminent human brains have addressed their efforts toward finding an answer to this question. Yet they still have not been able to produce what Spinoza termed a 'scientific base' on which to form a coherent political philosophy.

Altogether, there are more than twelve schools of political thought, which fall into two broad categories: despotism and democracy. The first is strongly objected to on the grounds that no good reason can be found for one single individual to tyrannise the entire population of a country or countries. Although democracy, as opposed to despotism, has wide popular support, it has not provided fool-proof solutions either to philosophical or practical problems. The literal meaning of democracy - a word of Greek origin - is rule by the people. This notion has been widely hailed as a panacea of all ills, but, in practice, it has proved impossible to establish rule by the entire population of any given country. If all of the people are to govern, how can they - at the same time - be governed? If all the people cannot have power simultaneously, how can a popular government be formed? Various theories have been propounded, the most popular of which is Rousseau's, i.e. that it should be left to the General Will, which can be determined by plebiscite. But, this being a time-consuming and cumbersome process (not to speak the expense involved), government by the people becomes, in effect, government by a few elected individuals. People may be free to vote as they please, but after they have voted, they are once again subjected to the rule of a select group. Democratically elected rulers over the world are now seen to assume the same role as the monarchs of former times.

The notion of freedom is traditionally associated with democracy, but there, too, as a political system it does not necessarily make people more liberated than they were under overtly oppressive regimes. Although the entire basis of democracy is the belief that people are born equal, with equal rights and that they are free, Rousseau expresses the more immediate reality with the very first lines of his Social Contract, "Man was born free and everywhere he is in chains." Then, too, there is man's very nature to be considered. He is a social animal. Far from being an independent entity in this world with the liberty to live as he pleases, he is an integral part of the corpus of society. Another philosopher goes so far as to say that "man is not born free. Man is born into society which imposes restraints on him."

Clearly, democracy, although in large measure an improvement on despotism, does not automatically provide the key to solving the problems of restricted individual liberty and social inequality. Often, in the name of democracy, a dynastic monarchy is supplanted by an elective oligarchy, leaving the individual still feeling that he is no more than a pawn in the struggle for power. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people rose in rebellion against monarchical systems of government, but, once free of the yoke of kingly rule, they had to resign themselves to rule by an elite group calling themselves 'representatives of the people' - which did not seem much of an improvement on life under the old monarchs, who had laid claim to being 'representatives of God on earth.'

All political philosophers have been caught up in contradictions of this nature. And there appears no way out of the impasse. Even the so called "representation' of the people is open to question. Take the example of the British conservatives who, in one year, won a decisive victory, winning an overall majority of 144 seats. In terms of votes, however, the conservative share of the vote (43%) had fallen since 1979, i.e. as far as seats were concerned the conservatives had won a massive overall majority. But, as far as votes were concerned, they could muster only 43%. Could this be said to be truly representative of the people? Man's failure in this field has been summed up in these words: 'The history of political philosophy from Plato until the present day makes it plain that modern political philosophy is still faced with the basic problems.

In fact, there is only one political philosophy that does not contradict itself, and that is the philosophy put forward by the Qur'an. The Qur'an says, that only God has the right to rule over man: ' "Have we any say in the matter?" they ask. Say to them: "All is in the hands of God,'" (3:154).

The idea of God as Sovereign makes for a coherent system of thought, free from all forms of contradiction. But when man is considered sovereign, there are bound to be contradictions and inconsistencies in the political theories that evolve. The aim of all political theories has been to eradicate the divisions between ruler and subjects. Yet no human system, whatever its nature, has been able to do this. In both the democratic and totalitarian systems, human equality has remained an unattainable ideal, for power has always had to be put in the hands of a few individuals, with others becoming their subjects. This disparity can only disappear when God is considered Sovereign. Then the only difference that remains is between God and man. He is the Ruler, all are His subjects. All men are equal before Him. There is no division and no distinction, between man and man.