In recent times, Islamophobes and Islamists both find Islam and democracy inconsistent. Modern political scientists asserts on four fundamental elements of a state. They are (i) a population, (ii) a certain geographical area, (iii) a government and (iv) state sovereignty. Islam approves the first three but in the question of sovereignty it differs. Islam maintains that in the question of sovereignty the Creator is supreme. As per Al Qur’an “He will not be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned” (Surah 21: al-Anbiya, Ayah 23) or “They have no Guardian apart from Him, and He shares His Sovereignty with no one” (Surah 18: al-Kahf, Ayah 26) or “To Him belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth” (Surah 57: al-Hadid, Ayah 2) or “The decision belongs solely to Allah” (Surah 6: al-An’am, Ayah 57) etcetera. Democracy in Islam
The chasm between secularism and Islam or so to say religion is mainly due to latter-day clerics
Prof Sarwar Md Saifullah Khaled
In recent times, Islamophobes and Islamists both find Islam and democracy inconsistent. Modern political scientists asserts on four fundamental elements of a state. They are (i) a population, (ii) a certain geographical area, (iii) a government and (iv) state sovereignty. Islam approves the first three but in the question of sovereignty it differs. Islam maintains that in the question of sovereignty the Creator is supreme. As per Al Quran He will not be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned (Surah 21: al-Anbiya, Ayah 23) or They have no Guardian apart from Him, and He shares His Sovereignty with no one (Surah 18: al-Kahf, Ayah 26) or To Him belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth (Surah 57: al-Hadid, Ayah 2) or The decision belongs solely to Allah (Surah 6: al-Anam, Ayah 57) etcetera.
Some cite some of these Al Quranic verses that express according to them strong disapproval of majority views. To portray Islam anti-democracy by citing some of these brief verses non-contextually is misleading and equally odd. Even in democracy, we see, small ruling groups usually make important decisions. The majority only decides who is to rule. The particular way of making such decision is the key difference between democracy and other rules. We are to keep in mind that there is an obvious contrast between the cultures of Islam and West. We must view Islamic stands on such key democracy quality to measure consistency.
Al Quran and Sunnah are both silent on the first key method of how rulers to be chosen. This silence means Islam views the issue as a secular one and best be left to peoples wisdom and choice. It is instructive to note as to how the first, most devoted, Muslims chose rulers during the Medina era. As no decrees were given to them to chose rulers, their views on this issue clearly represent not decrees for future, but only guidance, to be adapted connected with the particular context. There were, in fact, variations even in this brief Medina era. The Prophet Muhammad (SWS) had two roles: Prophet and, after Hizrat (migration), Medina ruler. The basis for the first was divine decree. The second came from not decree, dynasty or force but a request by Medinas people.
The view of majority of the Muslim community is that Islam did not mandate Prophets (SWS) successor or even a method of succession. But again, the decision was found best left to the peoples opinion despite their huge faith in divine and prophetic wisdom. In consequence the Medina people chose the first Caliph through consensus. And the first Caliph chose the second. But the third Caliph was chosen by consensus. A bit like now, multiple candidates were vetted and questioned if he was suitable for the post. Consequent tumult led to his death. Yet, peoples will was so sacrosanct at the time that rebels or generals did not seize power. But still people chose the fourth Caliph. There were no monarchies nor did generals depose by force Caliphs chosen by people.
Thus, we see, early Muslim practice to chose rulers was not anti-democracy but anti-autocracy. One rarely finds such democratic process of selecting rulers in the early history of other faiths. So we find that early Muslim practice was anti-autocracy. The next key democracy characteristic is that rulers govern with egalitarianism, accountability and participation. There are many Al Quranic verses and Hadiths extolling these values among rulers, which Medina rulers earnestly practised. Medina rulers sat on floors with people and consulted them regarding the affairs of the state as per Al Quranic injunctions consult them in conduct of affairs (Surah 3: Ali Imran, Ayah 159). Judges and people could question their views and steps taken regarding the affair of state rule. Historically all this was rare in the pre-modern era.
Modern and pre-modern era state ruling standards clearly differ. One finds exclusion of women, colonies and low castes; slavery and massacres of aliens, even in the West, a mere more than hundred years back, after the dawn of modern democracy. But like Greece, Medina rule, represents a good example of pre-modern democracy. So democracy is not a concept of Western import but a core part of Islamic and Muslim history. The third issue is the source of law. It incongruently being fully secular in ideal democracy though partially divine in religions. Secularism supports laws enhancing welfare of the people and bans only acts which clearly harm people and their well being.
Religions usually support the first goal but ban some things which secularism terms allowed. The question arises, is Islam inherently inconsistent here with secularism, unlike other faiths? Muslims exhibit multiple practices in this regard. In the minority view found in brief Jihadi Caliphates, all public life is harshly governed by their odd views on Islam. The second view exists in autocratic Saudi Arabia and hybrid Iran around 10 percent of the Muslim world together where clerics dictate detailed Islamic laws based on Al Quran, Hadith and the views of imams. A last minority view exists in states like Niger that are secular.
The majority view exists in most of the democratic states like Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia etcetera where clerics have at most advice roles. A small number of decrees, only those seen as timeless Al Quranic ones e.g. wine, pork etcetera bans, become law there through the religion-inspired voting of elected officials. But bans based on religious ground and the views of legislators exist to a lesser extent elsewhere also, e.g. beef bans in Hindu majority India, abortion bans in Catholic states, gay bans in Christian Africa and a US Congress majority against abortion and gay union even today.
Globally around 30 states have Christianity and 22 Islam as state religions. So, we see, the difference is relative. Overall, Islam seems more correspondent on two democracy characteristics and less on only one.
The chasm between secularism and Islam or so to say religion is mainly due to latter-day clerics. Earlier, religions were the main source of gains for weaker groups of people like women and downtrodden. Proactive thinking minds saw the gains as tactical first steps by religions given the limited change capacities of any society and advocated for more steps once those changes got entrenched.
But, unfortunately, unthinking clerics took them as the last word forever and thus religious thought on social progress froze or turned sterile although Al Quran the basis of Islamic dynamism and peace is A guide and a reminder for those endowed with reason (Surah 40: Ghafir, Ayah 54). As a result the thinking minds then had to make secular fronts to push for more changes in society unnecessarily deviating from religion. Thus, today, despite the religions big head start, secular practice is far ahead of religions on social issues.
Here we may, however, cite a Hadith emphasising on the role of reason in explaining Al Quranic injunctions. A traditional discourse between the Prophet and his appointee as qādi over al-Yemen, Muādh ibn-Jabal, sums up the Magna Charta of Islamic legal fundamentals:- Muhammad: How wilt thou decide when a question arises?/ Muadh: According to the Book of Allah./ Muhammad: And if thou findest naught therein?/ Muadh: According to the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah./ Muhammad: And if thou findest naught therein?/ Muadh: Then shall I apply my own reasoning. Thus did Moslem jurisprudence come to have two new roots in addition to the Koran and tradition: analogy and consensus of opinion (Hitti, Philip K. History of the Arabs, 2006, pp. 396-398) termed in Arabic as Qiyas (analogical deduction) and Ijma (consensus of opinion) respectively.
These two are the unanimous views of the religious experts on the reasonable interpretation of new conditions and varied situations keeping in conformity with the Scripture and Hadith that prevails. Therefore, Islam and democracy are not only compatible but their association inevitable; in a Muslim society, one without the other is imperfect and the will of the majority shapes the ideal Islamic state (David Bukay. Can There Be an Islamic Democracy? Review Essay, Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2007, pp. 71-79).
Moreover, some western thinkers also find that Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time (Hart, Michael H. 2000. The 100, pp. 33-40).
Today in religions, including Islam, therefore, a re-awakening is needed under thinking and reasoning minds to restore their role as leaders on social progress for the salvation of mankind by making sufficient arrangements for them to learn the correct aspects of religions.
The writer is a retired Professorof Economics
