Any favourable mention of ‘democracy’ in an Islamic setting will invariably provoke an outraged response from some Muslims. “Democracy is shirk (polytheism) because it replaces the laws of Allah with man-made laws,” will be the essential argument. Ergo, any Muslim who suggests that the absence of democracy in the Muslim lands is a bad thing is therefore, in the minds of these Muslims, advocating the wholesale replacement of the shariah with a law that gives ascendency to the ‘laws of man’.
The typical knee-jerk opposition to the concept of ‘democracy’ is, in reality, born from a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word rather than a real ideological opposition to it. This is because when a person says or writes ‘democracy’, many Muslims hear or read ’secularism’. These are two very different concepts and, despite what some may say, one does not necessarily imply the other.
The term ‘democracy’ is derived from the Greek words demos and kratos, meaning ‘people’ and ‘rule’. It was originally used to describe the early political system of the Ancient Greeks. Under this system, citizens of the Athenian city state were entitled to vote. Initially, citizenship extended only to an elite group but later expanded to include all men over the age of 20 (whilst excluding, of course, women and slaves). Laws were made in an Assembly where any citizen could appear, vote on laws and argue their points of view.
Later, other civilizations such as the Romans, English, French and United States would adapt or develop other forms of political systems that differed greatly in their detail but still held to a broad democratic ideal: that the people, or a subset of the people, would have some say in the selection of their leaders and/or the passage of law.
Democracy simply refers to a system where the people have some say, to an unspecified degree, in the running and organisation of their society. There is no axiom that states that a democratic system must secular or even capitalist. One need only look at the German Democratic Republic for evidence of that.
However, the problem that some Muslims have is that they perceive that because democracy means broadly ‘rule by the people’ that implicit in that is they can make whatever rules they like with no reference whatsoever to a ‘higher law’ such as the laws of Islam, Judaism or Christianity. However, this is what is known as ’secularism’ or, when applied to democracy, ’secular democracy’.
Secularism is the philosophical view that society and its institutions should be guided by reason and science alone, with no reference to religious belief or the supernatural. Legislation should be made based upon rational evidences or based upon social consensus, not spiritual requirements. For example, it is acceptable, secularism would concede, for gay marriage to be banned based on a ‘majority view’ that it was an undesirable institution to introduce in society but the nostrums of secularism would not allow gay marriage to be banned because the Old Testament forbids homosexuality.
It is, of course, true that nowadays most every democratic system is also secular. However, it is wrong to form one’s definition of democracy by surveying the contemporary political systems of the West. Democracy was invented long before the advent of secularism and both ideas appeared in response to very different issues in society. Democracy does not require that the laws formed by some sort of democratic process must be secular; and secularism does not require that a system should also be democratic. For instance, the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussain was a textbook example of a secular regime but it was certainly not democratic.
Just as some Musim intellectuals and scholars are considering the idea of an Islamic democracy, Christians are likewise considering the possibility of alternatives to the secular democracy. Australia’s own Cardinell George Pell gave a lecture in 2004 in which he pondered the question, “Is there only secular democracy?”. He asserts that democracy is simply a mechanism or a broad approach and doesn’t necessarily imply secularism.
….because democracy is never unqualified. We are used to speaking of “liberal democracy,” which as currently understood is a synonym for secular democracy; in Europe there are (or were) parties advocating “Christian democracy”; lately there has been much interest in the possibility of “Islamic democracy,” and the shape it might take. These descriptors do not simply refer to how democracy might be constituted but to the moral vision democracy is intended to serve. This is true even, or especially, in the case of secular democracy, which some commentators—John Rawls, for example—insist is intended to serve no moral vision at all. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II makes just this point when he argues that democracy “is a means and not an end. Its ‘moral’ value is not automatic,” but depends on “the ends which it pursues and the means which it employs.… [T]he value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves.
In other words, it is entirely possible to imagine a democracy that serves the moral ends of Catholicism — opposing, for example, late term abortion and legislating against pornography — just as it is easy to conceive of a democracy that serves no morals ends whatsoever.
If we accept now that democracy and secularism are distinct concepts, another objection will arise from the usual suspects: why must you talk about democracy — a foreign, infidel-invented political system — when you have Islam?
If one advocated communism or socialism as the political panacea for the world’s Muslims, then such an objection would have some merit. However, in the case of democracy, it is rather different because what Muslims understand as shura is, in itself, a form of democracy. And, I am sure, nobody from amongst the usual suspects would suggest that shura is un-Islamic or implicitly secular.
Sheikh Jaafar Idris, one of the few Islamic scholars who brings a deep and nuanced understanding of Western political and social theories to his work, defines shura as follows:
According to this purely linguistic meaning, shoora is no more than a procedure of making decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken, or others who can help them to reach such a decision.
The important matter on which shoora is made can be either a matter which concerns an individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the whole public. Let us call the first individual shoora, the second group shoora, and the third public shoora.
Thus formally understood, shoora has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people – a gang of robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives.
Is shura then democratic? Sheikh Jaafar continues:
Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab would have described as shoora. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences between shoora and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life, because a people who choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population, should not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be and is, therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is almost identical with shoora. There is thus nothing in the primary or extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If shoora can take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form.
And that is what we speak of when we talk favourably about democracy: a democracy with an Islamic form. It doesn’t mean secularism. It doesn’t necessarily mean a multi-party democracy such as one finds in the United Kingdom or Australia. It doesn’t even necessarily mean that the right to vote is extended across the entire society; it might mean, as with previous Muslim states, that the right to elect the khalifah or ruler is delegated to the religious, commercial and cultural leaders of the society (known, in Arabic, as ahl al-hali wa’l ‘aqd).
Ultimately, of course, the most pressing issue facing the Muslims are not political but spiritual. The institutions and systems of governance in our societies will be reformed only when the Muslims who live under them are reformed. The Islamic state is the natural consequence of a critical mass of Muslim constituents choosing to live their lives according to Islam, rather than something than be explicitly engineered and constructed.
8 comments ↓
The problem with a discussion of democracy around many Muslims is that they are not living in the real world but some kind of a make believe world that they pretend exists eveytime they got together for a lecture and therefore they can easily throw aside democracy, or escape facing the reality that almost every Muslim state is a failed state and the like and that every Muslim group that has gained power has been a failure in the last hundred years.
bismillah
assalamu alaikum
First of all, let me say MASHALLAH! Mashallah tabarakallah! A wonderful peace of work akhi mashallah! You have commented on every point. While I’m reading I come up with an argument in my head and then what do you know, the next sentence answers it! subhanAllah.
There is one question that you yourself asked but didn’t give a satisfing answer to. You said;
“why must you talk about democracy — a foreign, infidel-invented political system — when you have Islam?”
This question you didn’t clearly answer. Because in the end, you showed that “Islamic democracy” is really just Islam, as there is the shura, and all the elements in the Islamic political arena. So why do you insist on calling it democracy or even Islamic ‘democracy’? Why not call it Islam or (as Islamic rule is known by definition) khilafah? I’m not trying to nit-pick on small issues like terminologies, it is just that there ARE Muslims who advocate the secular democracy and they too call it simply ‘democracy’. Even the socialist movements call themselves democracies. I just think, as Muslims, we should just say “I want to live under the shade of a khaleefah”. and that’s that.
Another thing I would like to comment on is your last paragraph. You said;
“Ultimately, of course, the most pressing issue facing the Muslims are not political but spiritual. The institutions and systems of governance in our societies will be reformed only when the Muslims who live under them are reformed. The Islamic state is the natural consequence of a critical mass of Muslim constituents choosing to live their lives according to Islam, rather than something than be explicitly engineered and constructed.”
You’re suggesting that when the Muslims are reformed the systems of governance will be reformed? Akhi, may I remind you that those systems are tyrannies and even at this very moment, not a single Arab or Muslimcountry lives under a government that the people want. So whether they want Islam, communism, facism, macdonaldism, nothing is going to happen until political action is taken against those tyrannical governments. Am I wrong? Spiritual awakening amonst the Muslim will not magically install new regimes, an action should be taken and that action is not growing a beard and rolling up your trousers. These things are ibadaat that you do between you and Allah. As for siasaat (politics) this is done for the benefit of our community and should be also worked on and never ignored for living a life of complete ibadaat.
wassalamu alaikum.
At some point, tyrannical governments will be vanquished. The question is, however, as to whether this is an end in itself that we should work towards or whether we should focus our efforts elsewhere and political reform will be the natural consequence of that?
I don’t know if you have visited or lived in the Middle East, but I assure you that if a pure Islamic regime was to be installed in half of the Muslim lands, the first people to rebel — before anyone else — would be these same Muslims. We can’t just flick a political switch and have entire societies change.
In short, political systems don’t change people, people change their systems.
The reason why the Muslims are in such a pitiful, disgraced, debased and humiliated state right now is not because of our relationship with the state, our relationship with the Jews, or our relationship with any of the other things that Muslims like to blame our condition on. The sole and only reason for our state is that we, as a community, abandoned our relationship with Allah and became corrupted and unjust. It is the sunnah of Allah, as Ibn Taymeeyah mentioned, that He prefers the just non-Muslim state to the unjust Muslim state, and this is why Allah has given the non-Muslims an exalted position in this world. If we want to return to something of our previous position, then the only way that this can be achieved is by fixing up this relationship with Allah; by practicing our religion, fearing Allah and doing what is required. This is why the path to reform — politically and socially — is to practice our religion. If we can just do that, then everything else will take care of itself.
“spiritual awakening amonst the Muslim will not magically install new regimes, an action should be taken and that action is not growing a beard and rolling up your trousers. These things are ibadaat that you do between you and Allah. As for siasaat (politics) this is done for the benefit of our community and should be also worked on and never ignored for living a life of complete ibadaat.”
this is actually a profoundly secular statement. That their is a distinction between personal worship and politics. This is a deeply flawed understanding of the prophetic tradition, where internal and personal development has EVERYTHING to do with one’s outward expression in society.
Very well written and interesting, but there´s one thing i´ll have to object to, the German Democratic Republic was a democracy only by name. The power was, which was also stated in the constitution, in the hands of SED, and only SED.
bismillah
assalamu alaikum
Amir said:—————————–
At some point, tyrannical governments will be vanquished. The question is, however, as to whether this is an end in itself that we should work towards or whether we should focus our efforts elsewhere and political reform will be the natural consequence of that?
I don’t know if you have visited or lived in the Middle East, but I assure you that if a pure Islamic regime was to be installed in half of the Muslim lands, the first people to rebel — before anyone else — would be these same Muslims. We can’t just flick a political switch and have entire societies change.
—————————————————-
The middle east is not the only place in the world with a Muslim majority. Central Asia has Muslims (I’m not sure, but I think even more Muslims than in the Middle East) and they practice Islam more faithfully than alot of Arabs do. I’m a Syrian and as far as I have seen, today the Arab world is being divided into two scenes, those practicing Islam rigorously and those who became completely secular. The secularists are going around preaching a Western style democracy, so now the million dollar question is, what do the practicing Muslims want to do? Lock themselves up in their mosques expecting things to change on their own and that for Allah it is enough you’re growing a beard and praying your sunnah to establish Islamic rule or do they want to work for it and after you do the work THEN pray Allah will give you good results?
Amir said:———————————–
In short, political systems don’t change people, people change their systems.
——————————————–
Actually that’s half the truth only. I have written a couple of articles on that subject.
Basically, man’s actions are the results of his thoughts and the concepts he holds. Man’s concepts are the result of information he gathered. This information could be from school, parenting, friends, tv, the whole society and culture he lives in. Now what has most effect on these things? Who decides what education curriculem the school teaches? Who can control what is being put on TV, what is being sold in the market, what the whole society looks like; the whole environment that our children grow in. And the environment would have a large effect on people. It is what the system of rule is implementing, what it is allowing and what it is forbidding and what it is forcing on the people that molds the environment and the society with it. This is why we work our way from the top to the bottom and not the other way around. If you have control of the government you can dictate what the children learn at school, whether alcohol will be tolerated, gambeling, pornography, the decency in clothings, almost everything that molds people’s minds.
The only time people change a system is when that system is untolerably oppresive.
Amir said:———————-
The reason why the Muslims are in such a pitiful, disgraced, debased and humiliated state right now is not because of our relationship with the state, our relationship with the Jews, or our relationship with any of the other things that Muslims like to blame our condition on. The sole and only reason for our state is that we, as a community, abandoned our relationship with Allah and became corrupted and unjust. It is the sunnah of Allah, as Ibn Taymeeyah mentioned, that He prefers the just non-Muslim state to the unjust Muslim state, and this is why Allah has given the non-Muslims an exalted position in this world. If we want to return to something of our previous position, then the only way that this can be achieved is by fixing up this relationship with Allah; by practicing our religion, fearing Allah and doing what is required. This is why the path to reform — politically and socially — is to practice our religion. If we can just do that, then everything else will take care of itself.
——————-
Ibn Taymiyyah also said: “This is why those who are in authority are of two groups: the scholars and the rulers. If they are upright, the people will be upright; if they are corrupt, the people will be corrupt.”
I am not attacking the concept that we should fix our relationship with Allah. Ofcourse not, this is an important part of Islam, no doubt about it. What I am not agreeing with is the concept that this fixing of relationship ONLY entails your private salah and siaam and charity and nothing outside the confines of your own private relationship with Allah. Akhi, don’t expect to pass your engineering exam by praying every day. You have to study engineering to pass, Allah wont do it for you just because you prayed. Likewise, don’t expect your business to be successful if all you do is fast every other day and leave the management of the business to Allah, he wont do it for you. Likewise, don’t expect Islam to be establish as a political entity if all what you do is grow your beard and roll up your trousers. Allah wont do it for you akhi. When you want to build a mosque, you roll up your sleaves and start picking up stones, you don’t sit down and pray. Your work should be related to your aim, if our aim is to establish Islam as a political entity, then we have to work towards it and not expect that our prayers will be sufficient. Allah said in hadeeth qudsi, “work my servant and I will work with you”.
Baybers said:——————————
this is actually a profoundly secular statement. That their is a distinction between personal worship and politics. This is a deeply flawed understanding of the prophetic tradition, where internal and personal development has EVERYTHING to do with one’s outward expression in society.
————————————————–
I am talking about the method of implementing something. When I want to build a mosque and tell the people “lets stop praying for a minute and start mixing concrete” that does not make me a secular, that makes me realistic and the work in itself is a ibaada and the aim we’re trying to reach is of the nobelist. I am neither saying we should completely abandon prayer, nor am I saying that political action on its own without prayer will be our salvation. I am saying that there is a middle ground, where we neither go on one side of the wall nor the other side. It is not either absolute prayer or secularism.
wassalamu alaikum
If you look at the political views of many violent “Islamist” movements it would seem strongly arguable that they are authoritarian and totalitarian in their conception of governance. This has allowed for the neocons to equate “political Islam” with dictatorship (“Islamofascism”).
Shaykh Salman al-’Awdah observed: “What good is it to get rid of a fascist regime with secular trappings only to replace it with a fascist regime with Islamic trappings?” This is the mentality that we must challenge. We must present a viable Islamic option to secular democracy, which is what America is offering, and “religious” authoritarianism, which certain revolutionary, utopian groups like Hizb at-Tahrir, Jama’at al-Jihad, Qaeda, and others have presented.
How would you respond to the suggestion that neither democracy nor capitalism is really possible in much of the Arab world because the regimes are rentier states focused purely on the export of oil?
Leave a Comment