Islam's approach towards democracy

[Thinkerman]

Thaks for the link Jazeera. Am gonna check it out Inshallah after posting this reply.

 

what i have got from everyones replies, certainly Muraad's Yacquub and yours and even Thunders, is that definately Islam can be administered via a system similar to that seen in many of these western democracries.

 

Certainly i dont think that they would be problems in adopting the various types of institutional departments that they have such as the heirachy of their court structure (obviously amended so that it reflects any Demands by they Quraan and Sunnah)into the structure of islamic governance.

What both you and Yacquub touched on in slightly different ways i.e.'' Shuraa'' and its importance, as well as the understanding that the Quraan is the ultimate source of legislation i think is where the 'meat' of this might debate lye.

[La Fidele]

Excellent summary, Shujui .

[Rahima]

If we look extensively into the meaning of democracy and all that it entails, we can establish the premise that the idea of an Islamic state that is based on Democracy is nothing more than an oxymoron. We do not have such a clause in our Quran and to expect Muslims to abide as such, is asking them to copy Christianity. Inshallah when I have more time I shall bring proofs (one must always back up a claim).

 

We have a political theory in Islam, it must be understood that not only was the Muhammad (S.A.W) a prophet, but also a statesman. The political theory of Islam is not clearly defined in the Quran, however there are aspects of the theory appearing in it. The greater portion of the theory is contained in the Traditions (Sunnah) of Rasuallah.

 

Having established that, then I ask why is it that we Muslims tend to define our systems by the terminology of the west. We have our own; our Creator ordained one that is far superior for it, let us work to establish it and Inshallah we will return to our former glory.

[Thinkerman]

Inshallah

[Khayr]

Salams Ya Akhwani,

You know there are many muslims who have this notion about Shura in Islam and how it encompasses some of the principles and practices of democracy. In this lays great confusion because a Shura consists of people that are chosen by the Imam and not the people. The Imam/Amir in any jammat or Dar-al Islam (e.g. Iran during the Ayotallah's reign) and in classical islamic history, the rasul's (salallahu caliyhe wa salim) shura which was composed of the most senior sahaba. When matters dealing with areas such as what to do for a particular battle or who to send to the next town for dawah and etc., rasul(salallahu caliyhe wa salim) did not call up the people of Medina for advice, but rather for the Shura, which he called up and hand picked. This Shura consisted of the Senior Sahaba.

Likewise, in modern times, the Ayotallah did the similiar thing. The people never elect the Shura members so its not democratic. However, these Shura members have their own bodies of people that have influence over and control and they talk with the leaders of those small groups.

Islam is Hierarchal and not Democractic by any means or modality. Many muslim modern thinkers try to shape Democracy and 'Islamizes it'. However you can't make something apart of Islam that was meant to kill Religion/Deen. Democracy puts the rule of the people above all else. Islam puts the rule of God's law, the Shariah (which consists of the Quran, Sunnah and the interpretations of the Ulama based on them) above all else.

Islam is not a Dictatorship in the sense that the Ummah follows the whims and orders of a Leader based on that leaders personal agenda void of the niyah fillah to do things.

Islam is a Theo-memocracy as a shiekh once told me.

 

The Imam is not chosen by the people by the way but through either by the previous Imam who has passed away or the Shura (of who usually one of the them is elected e.g. Abu Baker as-siddiq and the majlis shura meeting after rasul (salallahu caliyhe wa salim)had passed away).

 

I remeber when I was younger, 9 or so and my father use to take me to somali organized demonstrations and tell me to yell 'Democracy YES, Dictatorship NO', all to show disapproval for Siyad Barri and the civil war. What about the Shariah and going back the deen? The people at such rallies would say something like 'Well the deen is all fine, we can incorporate that in by not after some Somali Nationalism done with Democracy, then we can pick and chose what part of the Deen we can use.' This is what I use hear (not in the same words ofcourse, but in the same overall tone and spirit. :rolleyes:

 

'The battle is a battle of IDEAS and not swords or bombs because the latter we can easily be crushed but the former we have Islam which is immutable and doesn't change with Time. Rather MANKIND, changes with TIME.'

[Thinkerman]

Salam Calayakum Khayr

 

Thx for taking the time to contribute to the debate that was an excellent contribution.

 

I understand and fully agree with ur sentiments. Indeed i suppose by borrowing from, and ammending democratic models we would be trying to 'Islamize' it. So that being wrong or shall we say undesirable what should we then do. Can i ask then how would we be able to circum navigate the issue of the Immans selection?

[La Fidele]

Rahiima, it has been Allah's will that my family ended up in Canada, and as such I've been educated in Western concepts and ideas. Through wonderful forums, such as this, I'm expanding my knowledge of Islamic ideology. I don't think it's harmful, however, to suggest the positive proponents of the theory of democracy. Ignoring something altogether is more destructive than considering it, right?

I don't doubt that modern democracy, as lived out by the west, is conflictual with Islam.

 

Khayr, can you really cite Iran as an example of a successful (even moderately) Islamic state? You can prove me wrong, but I was under the impression they are under substantial turmoil.

 

If anyone can give an example of a modern and sound Islamic fundamental state (and I mean one that's not tyrannical, despotic, etc), I would really appreciate it. None cross my mind.

[Thinkerman]

Thats a very good question Jazeera, admitdly none automatically spring to mind.

 

That said (moving off the topic for a sec)the are many countries out there that are much better to live in as a muslim than, well certainly here in the uk as far as am concerned.

 

Although the hardships that u would suffer in trying to get your education and a job might be higher in let say any of the Gulf countries, to live in them as a practising muslim must be somewhat better.

 

Here all you have to do is to step outside your front door to see People commiting all sin's, and unfortunately the temptations are everywhere.

[Haashim]

Assalaamu Calaykum, after short break due to SOL's out of service :cool: .

 

As some of you may know but many muslims ignore it THE FOUR KHULAFAAUL RAASHIDIIN (ABUU BAKAR, CUMAR, CUSMAAN AND CALI RADIYALLAAHU CANHUM) come to power in different ways.

 

1. ABUU BAKAR (R.A) come to power by (in)direct appointing by our PROPHET (S.C.W) when he (S.C.W)ordered him to lead the SALAT during his illness (S.C.W). all the muslims understood that the rasuul (S.C.W) meant to lead the nation not only SALAT and there was no disbute over his KHILAAFAH except very minority ruaral area settelers (ACRAAB) who refused to pay the ZAKAT to ABUBAKAR (R.A) and this disbute was solved quickly by the wisdom of ABUBAKAR (R.A).

 

2. UMAR BIN AL-KHATAAB (R.A) was appointed directly by ABUBAKAR (R.A) and there was no any disbute over the appointment.

 

3. CUSMAAN BINU CAFAAN (R.A) was elected by 6 big sahabas (CALI BIN ABII TAALIB, CUSMAAN BIN CAFAAN,DHALXA BIN CUBAYDULAAH, ZUBAIR BINUL CAWAAM, SACAD IBNU ABII WAQAAS AND CABDURAXMAAN IBNU COOF RADHIYALAAHU CANHUM) who were appointed by CUMAR (R.A) to elect khalifa between them on majority basis.

he (R.A) also told other shahaba to be present the meeting as a advisors not as candidates these sahaba include ZUHEYB, HASAAN BIN CALI, CABDULAAHI IBNU CABBAAS, CABDULAAHI IBNU CUMAR RADIYALAAHU CANHUM. He gave them 3 days as a deadline to elect KHALIFAH. when the last day come CALI, CUSMAN AND CABDURAXMAAN (R.A) were the final candidates. there are some RIWAYAS saying that ABDIRAXMAAN (R.A) went to to the city to ask people which candidate they prefer CUSMAAN or CALI because he didn't want to bcome KHALIFAH he just want to know who he may give his voice and later(after long discussion), CUSMAN (R.A) got the majority voices. (i know there are many false RIWAYAS on this issue but it's true that CUSMAN (R.A) won this vote).

 

4. ALI BIN ABI TALIB (R.A) the last KHALIFAH he come to power by the desire of the people.

when CUSMAN (R.A) was killed by men from EGYPT all the people gathered in front of the home of ALI (R.A) to force him lead the UMMAH after USMAN (R.A) because no one on earth at that time was more aplicable to this position than ALI (R.A).

he refused initially because he (R.A) knew that some munaafiqiin and enemies of islam will take advantage of this event (the killing of CUSMAN -R.A-) and will create FITNAH between muslims, but after many advices of big SAHABA he accepted the desire of the public. he (R.A) faced DILEMMA either to leave the nation without leader or to be ready this FITNAH and he (R.A) chose to face all these challenges for the sake of ALLAH and the UMMAH.

 

 

 

Can we conclude these conclusion.

 

1. (IN)DIRECT APPOINTMENT FOR ABUBAKAR (R.A)

2. DIRECT APPOINTMENT FOR CUMAR (R.A)

3. SHURA OR PARLIAMENTRY ELECTION FOR CUSMAN (R.A)

4. GENERAL OR PUBLIC DESIRE FOR CALI (R.A)

 

This is not final conclusion, anyone can give his/her point of view, my purpose was only to show you that the chosing a muslim leader is not confined in a particular way but it could be one of these four ways, since our PROPHET (S.A.W) orders us to follow his path and the path of his KHULUFAAUL RAASHIDIIN (ABUBAKAR, CUMAR, CUSMAN, AND CALI RADHIYALAAHU CANHUM).

 

Our present leaders are very happy when someone criticise democracy and they may finance to criticise democracy because they will rule us untill their death. So, as i say before LACNATALULAAH CALAAL DIIMUQRAADIYAH but we want to get rid off these dictators.

 

How we cat get rid off them?

 

if your answer is AN ISLAMIC WAY we've seen four different ways and we can choose any one of them.

 

what about if we choose CUMAR BINUL KHATAAB'S WAY (R.A) i.e to chose parliament and the parliament elect the president. because if we ask people to choose the president they may choose on the basis of tribe etc.

 

....................................

 

LAA DHARARA WALAA DHIRAARA

[Khayr]

Salams,

Excellent examples Muraad.

 

In the Ahl al Shia madhabs, mainly the 12 imams, they believe that only people from the ahl-al bait

and its decendants can be muslim leaders. In particular, only the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. But this was changed somewhat by the Imam Khomeni who introduced new ideas and concepts.

 

Inshallah, according to sunni madhabs those are some of the ways (though I don't think that Ali ibn Talib would have just decided to become Khalifah based on what the majority of people said. Ali was the most idealistic out of all the khalifahs and I don't think that he would have done something based on the voice the people.)

However, there is also divine decree.

In many established tariqas around the muslim world, there muslim community/tariqa was begun by a shiekh who had followers. Followers that have come to know that shiekh as their teacher, leader and Imam. The people developed a strong bond to their shiekh. Usually the shiekh sifts out those that he wants to lead and initiate into his circle/community.

This process is done in halqaa and jamaat. Were in groups of muslims gather together to grow in deen and iman with a proper understanding of the Vision of Islam. When the Vision is their, then the understanding comes and then hearts become binded closer, inshallah.

In the local masjids today, this is not the pattern that is followed and thats why you have fragmented people in these mosques that are only packed on ramadan or jummah.

When people in Somalia or any other nation look at trying to establish change, they always look for 'quick fixes' and often in the wrong direction.

What I have desribed above has been followed arethe various tariqas, the various islamic movements around the world etc. they have followed this pattern. They all might have had different Visions of Islam but in terms of establishing a muslim community and leadership, they went about it the classical way.

I know that with a few lines these ideas can not be summed up but inshallah, I hope that this is a start to a center.

[Thinkerman]

Salam Calayakum Fellow Nomads

 

So far we have been debating about the Possible Approaches that can be takin to Making an Islamic state, which has Islamic Governance, Islamic Jurisprudency and that which would forgoe the trading in Interest. But the debate has been somehwat limited to a more Idealistc one.

 

This i suppose is quite natural given the nature of the intial question and article.

 

However the new article and more relevant article that could aid a particular section of this debate follows below this.

 

That is the expamle of a country moving towards implementing an Islamic regime.

 

So hopefuly the article below will add more Fuel to this debate in this respect. Enjoy nomads

 

The article is on Mayaysia.

 

PAS 'will not force Islam on Malaysia if it runs the govt'

 

IPOH - PAS will not rush to turn the country into an Islamic state should it be given the power to run the government, said its acting president Abdul Hadi Awang.

 

He added that 'Malay heartland' states such as Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis would serve as 'role models' before the other states were asked to decide.

 

Advertisement

 

The party would consider the multi-racial composition of the country before taking any drastic action such as turning the country into an Islamic state, he said.

 

Mr Abdul Hadi, who is Terengganu Mentri Besar, said: 'We will discuss with all the other states whether they want to follow the other four.'

 

He made the comments after a dialogue session with non-Muslims here on Sunday.

 

He acknowledged that PAS must ensure the successful implementation of an Islamic framework before persuading other states with a multi-racial population to adopt the laws.

 

He assured non-Muslims they would not be subjected to hudud laws, pointing out that they would be free to decide on the different criminal laws - hudud or the Penal Code.

 

'If those from other faiths want to implement their religious criminal laws, they will be allowed to do so because Islam does not force its rules on people from other religions,' he explained.

 

Among the six offences listed under hudud law are illicit sex, for which offenders can be stoned to death, and theft, which is punishable by the amputation of a hand.

 

Robbery and apostasy are both punishable by death while those who consume liquor or other intoxicating drinks may be given at least 40 lashes of the cane.

 

Hudud law was passed at the Terengganu state assembly in July.

 

Kelantan passed similar laws in 1993 but they have yet to be enforced.

 

Both sets of law have been widely criticised, especially by women's groups which say they discriminate against women.

 

Umno has promised to block their enforcement.

 

On Dec 12, Mr Abdul Hadi said Terengganu had no immediate plans to enforce the hudud law and would instead send a delegation to some west Asian countries, including Saudi Arabia, to study the implementation of such laws.

 

Mr Abdul Hadi said any decision by PAS would also depend on its joint manifesto with opposition partners Keadilan and Parti Rakyat Malaysia before the next general election.

 

He said PAS was willing to work with Chinese-based parties and welcomed discussions with the DAP, Gerakan and the MCA on changes they would like to see in the running of the country.

 

He said PAS' priority would be to eradicate poverty, adding that elected representatives and state executive councillors from PAS-ruled states agreed to forgo two years' pay increment for the purpose. --The Star/Asia News Network,New Straits Times

[Thinkerman]

The west, not Islam, is the real enemy of democracy

 

The warmongers encourage secular autocrats to suppress the Muslim world

 

Faisal Bodi

Monday January 13, 2003

The Guardian

 

How did it come to this?" asks Theoden, King of Rohan, as he gazes down on the massed ranks of evil beleaguering his fortress in Hollywood's adaptation of Lord of the Rings.

The words may be fictional but, as we count down to Washington's second instalment in the real-life epic that is the the war on terror, an honest examination of what has brought the civilisations of Islam and the west to this critical pass is long overdue. For despite the seemingly unassailable sway of the clash of civilisations thesis - in some quarters more a desire than a forecast - there is hope and it lies in the fact that the differences are less intractable than the forces of darkness would have us believe.

 

Five years ago, the Iranian president Mohammed Khatami called for a "dialogue of civilisations" before a meeting of the UN. The speech was an encomium to liberty, articulating what progressive Islamists have been advocating for years as the key to peace: emancipation from despotism. The major obstacle to peace, goes the theory, is not terrorism or religious obscurantism but the enslavement of hundreds of millions of Muslims, who continue to be denied the fundamental right of being free to choose their own leaders and systems of government.

 

The warmongers have made sure the message has remained outside mainstream debate so they can forge ahead unimpeded. Using their agents and sympathisers in the mass media to blanket all Islamist politics as fundamentalist, and by excluding its fluid, nuanced discourse from the international conversation, they have rendered voiceless a full quarter of humanity.

 

Because most Muslim politics is Islamist the political and media blackout has meant the grievances of subject Muslim populations have failed to reach their free counterparts in the west. How many on the Clapham omnibus know that France actively supported the Algerian government's annulment of elections that Islamists were poised to win in 1992, plunging the country into a savage civil war? Or that in Egypt, whose single-party regime qualifies in Washington as the second most-favoured tyranny after Israel, religious parties are banned, as they are in Turkey, and political dissidents tortured? Or that since the "accession" of the Palestinian National Authority, Palestinian newspapers critical of Arafat have been banned and their editors spirited away to jail in the middle of the night to be flogged back into line? Or that in Jordan political activity in mosques is outlawed?

 

The governments of the west decree that liberty is not a fundamental right for Muslims; it is a privilege to be extended in proportion to the degree to which they conform to their prescriptions, especially that of secularisation. The war on terror is part of a campaign to wrench Muslim societies from their religious roots, a phenomenon that has best been explained by Rachid Ghannouchi, a Tunisian Islamist ideologue now exiled in Britain.

 

For Ghannouchi the war against Islam began with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798 and continued through the era of colonialism when opposition was monopolised by a secularised elite that eventually supplanted the colonial regimes. However, instead of actualising the Koranic principle of shura (community consultation) to build democratic polities in which the will of the majority is recognised, they set about doing violence to the faith in the mistaken belief that progress and development could only be achieved by aping the west.

 

But there was a crucial difference in the secularism enshrined in western polities and the aggressive totalitarian variant imposed in the Muslim world. While the former merely separated the religious from the mundane leaving some space for religion as in Britain, Arab pseudo-secularism sought to take control of the institutions and symbols of Islam. Resistance was met with state repression and violence.

 

Ghannouchi lists how Tunisia's post-independence autocrat Habib Borguiba tried to sever ties with its Islamic past, abrogating sharia law, removing religion from the curriculum of Zaytuna University before closing it down altogether, and nationalising mosques and the awqaf (relig-ious endowments that gave religious institutions such as schools and charities indepen-dence). He also issued a fiat ordering state employees to break the Ramadan fast and restricted the number of pilgrims performing the Hajj. For Tunisia you could substitute almost every other Arab nation-state.

 

Pseudo-secularism was necessary to remould the Muslim mind into accepting the western separation of church and state. There was no theoretical basis in Islam to render the political sphere unto Caesar. To the contrary - Muslims had to be forced by the state to adopt it. Anybody who believes the age of desacralisation has passed need only look at the demands being made by the US on Pakistan's General Musharraf and Indonesia's President Sukarnoputri to "reform" the Islamic schooling system, or madrasa, as a check against "extremism".

 

That secularism has been placed ahead of liberty is, says Ghannouchi, the result of malevolence but also a mis-conception in the western mind that sees in all religion the European struggle against a church that in the Middle Ages opposed the ability of reason to explain the universe and to organise life.

 

Since Islam has no inherent objection to reason - a facet demonstrated by the wealth of scientific knowledge it bequeathed to the Renaissance - it is inappropriate to view it through this lens. What we did have in the Muslim world was no end of autocracy. While the ulema (scholars who interpret the religion) shielded religious institutions from the state's will to power by anchoring them in civil society, they failed to develop a theory of governance rooted in the democratic practice of the early community in the city state centred on Medina.

 

Like many Islamists, Ghannouchi insists on the compatibility of democracy with Islam. Controversially for some Islamists, he advocates British-style secular democracy as a step to a democracy rooted in the divine law, since any type of democracy is better than the despotism that is Muslims' lot today.

 

"The conflict is not a religious one," he writes. "Nor is it even a conflict between religion and the western concept of secularism. It is a political conflict between the oppressor and the oppressed. It is about legitimacy and whom it belongs to. It is about the nature of government, the choice between autocracy and democracy."

 

Last week Jack Straw took the war on Iraq to the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, claiming that Saddam posed as great a threat to Muslims as he did to the west. Nice try, mate. Autocratic Saddam poses the same threat to Muslims as the "autocratising" west.

 

· Rachid Ghannouchi - A Democrat within Islamism by Azzam S Tamimi is published by Oxford University Press.

 

I thought this was an excellent article nomads. I didnt find much that i disagreed with, i would just to ask the more knowledgable nomads amongst you, especially thoses who have already contributed to this topib for a more critical over-view thx.

 

I Also read another article (which apears to be a Feature article) from .islamicity.com that was very relevenat to this and so i shall provide the Link to it if anyone wishes to view it.

 

http://iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0301-1829

 

Enjoy reading nomads

[Haashim]

Brother Shuju, the western know our countries more than most of us.

whenever one (dictator) leader challenges their interest like Saddam they called him dictator, btutal etc as they (we) don't know him before and they also uncover all his records of human rights violation.

why they didn't say at the time when these happen?

Are they wrong or we? they're not wrong they are looking their interest, and if u don't know how to look after your interest don't blame others.

 

we deserve this treatment (from west and from cruel leaders) because we are selfish people.

to explain this word "selfish" means very long article but unfortunately no spare time.

[Thinkerman]

walaahi you are correct bro muraad lol how can we complain of being ill treated by our enemies when we should expect no less of them, the true shame lies in the way we treat each other. Do we treach others as muslims or as anyone else? I saw a post on here the other day and it was interesting to say what ppl said the question posed being what are you first?

 

well anyway i think your right we have to try and have greater unity between muslim, you know true relationship as brothers and sisters in islam. We need to starting think about what that entails, how we conduct ourselves when we disagree and to moderate our behaviou towards each other I.E. thinking careful before acting.

 

I know it rather simplistic to say so, and most would shout back your being too unrealistc. well that woud be true, it is the case that some of us just simply dont give any consideration to islam, but that shouldnt mean we forget that we are muslims.

 

I might get my head shot off for picking the following as an example but take this current trend of somalis.... quick to jump to identify themselves as being a somalian or a somalilander?? why

 

why not identify yourself first and formost as a muslim and everything else follows behind that everything else being subordinate to this idenfifcation why not??

 

well i strayed quite abit from the topic my appoliges, but that was a very important point you raised muraad i just thought i would try and elaborate on it.

[Thinkerman]

Shah Abdul Hannan

 

DEMOCRACY IN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE

 

Shah

Abdul Hannan

Former

Secretary, Govt. of Bangladesh

 

Democracy is a commonly known word all over the world. Most of the

political movements in the world have made it their goal to establish this

system in their respective countries. Democracy is the most popular and

accepted political system in the modern world. Yet, there exists some

difference of opinion among the Islamic groups on democracy. Democracy and

human rights have occupied very important position in the political agenda

of many of the Islamic parties. However, some of the parties and people do

not accept it, since democracy speaks of sovereignty of the people.

 

In this context, we need a careful and deep analysis of this issue. We need

to understand the issue avoiding the minor technicalities. As we see,

Islamic parties and Islamic scholars of the modern world think of a

political system wherein government will run the country through

Parliament. They also want freedom of expression, voting right of the

people, rule of law, independent & free judiciary, free press, fundamental

human rights etc. These are also the pre-requisites of the democratic

system. It is therefore, apparent on a deeper analysis that the concept of

state and govt. of Islamic Parties are in conformity with the principles of

democracy.

 

Theoretically speaking, Islam speaks of sovereignty of Allah, while western

democracy advocates that sovereignty belongs to people. However, all

political thinkers do not share the same view of sovereignty. Some

political scientists even argue that there is no need of the concept

sovereignty at all. Even the concept of sovereignty is not highlighted in

the books which discuss democracy though sovereignty is discussed in great

detail as a political concept in the books of political science.

 

In this connection position taken in the constitution of Islamic Republic

of Iran is very relevant. Heading of chapter 5 of the consititution is

“Sovereignty of the Nation and the Powers emanating there from”. Article

56 reads as follows:

“The absolute sovereignty over the universe and man belongs to God who has

bestowed upon man sovereignty over his social destiny. None can deprive

man of this sovereignty, nor can he place it in the interest of certain

other person or group of persons. The nation shall exercise this divine

sovereignty through the ways referred to in the following articles of Law”

 

It is apparent that sovereignty has been divided between “absolute

Soverignty” and “bestowed Soverignty” (like concepts of legal sovereignty

and political sovereignty in the western concepts). It is clear from above

that all of us need not take same view on the concept and nature of

sovereignty.

 

In this context, we feel it necessary to quote from the writings of Allama

Yousuf Al Qardawi, an eminent Islamic scholar of the present time. He wrote

on Political Freedom and Democracy as follows:

 

“ The fear of some people here that democracy makes the people a source of

power and even legislation (although legislation is Allah’s alone) should

not be heeded here, because we are supposed to be speaking of a people that

in its majority has accepted Allah as its Lord, Mohammad as its Prophet and

Islam as its Religion. Such a people would not be expected to pass a

legislation that contradicts Islam and its incontestable principles and

conclusive rules.”

 

“Anyway, these fears can be overcome by one article stipulating that any

legislation contradicting the incontestable provisions of Islam shall be

null and void because Islam is the religion of the State and the source of

legitimacy of all its institutions and therefore may no be contradicted, as

a branch may not run against the main stream.”

 

“It should be known that the acceptance of the principle that legislation

or rule belong to Allah does not rob the Nation of its right to seek for

itself the codes necessary to regulate its ever-changing life and earthly

affairs.”

 

“What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the

flawless texts and the over all objectives of Sharia and the Islamic

Message. The binding texts are very few, while the area of “permissibility”

or legislative free space is quite wide and the texts themselves are so

flexible and capacious as to accommodate more than one understanding and

accept more than one interpretation, which leads to the existence of

several schools and philosophies within the expansive framework of Islam.”

(Quoted from ‘Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase’,

Chapter : The Movement and political Freedom and Democracy)

 

We find many Islamic scholars accepted the idea of democracy in Islam

though under certain conditions. Dr. Abu Said Nuruddin has written in his

book ‘Mohakobi Iqbal’, ( Iqbal the Great Poet) that Allama Iqbal, was not

happy with the democratic system because of its secularist stance but he

suggested in his writings that there was no alternative to democracy. In

his 6th speech on ‘Reconstruction of religious thought in Islam’, Allama

Iqbal stated that Islamic state is established on the principles of

freedom, equality, and the absolute principles of stability. Therefore the

principles of democratic rule is not only similar with the fundamental

aspects of Islam rather the executing powers are enhanced in the Muslim

world (Mohakabi Iqbal, Iqbal the Great Poet by Dr. Abu Said Nuruddin)

 

Iqbal observed, should the foundation of democracy rest upon spiritual and

moral values, it would be the best political system. He wrote in the "The

New Era" on its 28th July, 1917 issue: that democracy was born in Europe

from economic renaissance that took place in most of its societies…….But

Islamic democracy is not developed from the idea of economic advancement

rather it is a spiritual principle that comes from the principle that

everybody is a source of power whose possibilities can be developed through

virtue and character”. [Mohakabi Iqbal ( Iqbal the Great Poet) by Dr. Abu

Said Nuruddin, page -239)

 

That means according to Iqbal Islam prescribes democracy under the law of

Allah.

 

We see Moulana Maududi, fifty years ago from now, in his book “Political

theory of Islam” used the term “Theo-democracy” for Islamic state. He

didn’t deny the term ‘democracy’. Rather he accepted democracy while this

system will work under the sovereignty of Allah.

 

There is a misconception about Moulana Maududi’s true position about

democracy. Moulana Maududi initially criticized western democracy because

of its secularism and popular sovereignty (in the sense that Parliament can

make any law even if it violates the Law of Allah). However, his later

writings and political conduct proved that he believed in Democracy (Rule

of the people) subject to the Law of Allah (Sovereignty of Allah).

 

In an interview with Akhbar-e-Jahan Karachi which was published on 2 April

1969, Sayyid Maududi said,

“Islam and Democracy are not opposed to each other. Democracy is a system

where Govt. is formed run and changed on the basis of public opinion.

Islamic political order also is of the same type. However, our democratic

values are different from western values. Western democracy has no

limits…………………………………………… ……. …………………………...

On the other hand Islamic democracy is controlled by the Quran and the

Sunnah ………… …”

 

(Interviews of Moulana Maududi, on Bangla translation) published by Adhunik

Prokashani, Bangla Bazar, Dhaka, 1st edition. 1999, page 263).

 

In an interview with Mujallatun Guraba, an Arabic paper from London

(published in February 1969 No.), he said, “ to make people understand now

it is essential to use modern terminology. But care should be taken in

their use. Same terms should be avoided such as socialism. Some terms are

permitted with the condition that their Islamic and western connotation

should be clearly spelled out. Democracy, Constitutional system and

parliamentary system are such terms …….”. (ibid, page 255).

 

In an interview published in the Daily Mashriq of Lahore, Pakistan (1st

February, 1970), in reply to a question he said that, “those are good

people in his view who want to establish democracy in the country”. (ibid,

pages 339-345).

 

He has said in the same interview that “all our constitutional problems

should be solved by the representative of the people”.

 

In another interview in the Daily Hurriat in 1969 (published on 10th

November), he again said that all constitutional amendments should be made

in a democratic way by the representatives of the people”. (ibid, P-313).

 

His party always supported democracy. Pakistan constitution in 1956 and in

1973 was modeled structurally on democracy and his party Jamaat-e-Islami

supported these. His party fought against Martial Laws in Pakistan. He

supported Fatima Jinnah against Ayub Khan in Presidential election in 1965

because she promised to restore democracy. His party was a component of

DAC (Political combination of parties), where “D” stands for democracy.

 

So it is evident from his later writings and political conduct that he

stood for democracy.

 

We also see that in the first Islamic constitution of the present world,

the term democracy was accepted with the consent of Islamic scholars

(ulema). In the preamble, the term democracy was accepted in the following

manner :

 

“Wherein the principles of democracy freedom, equality, tolerance and

social justice, as enunciated by Islam, should be fully observed”. (from

the preamble of the constitution Pakistan of 1956)

 

In the 1973 constitution of Pakistan the same position was maintained.

 

“Wherein the principles of democracy freedom, equality, tolerance and

social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed”. (from the

preamble of the constitution of 1973)

 

This means that democracy has been accepted within the limits of Islam so

that in the name of democracy Islamic principles cannot be violated.

Islamic Scholars and Islamic Politicians have come to accept the word

democracy and what it means within these limits.

 

Allama Yousuf Al Qardawi in his book “ Priorities of the Islamic Movement

In the Coming Phase” has titled one of its chapters as “ The Movement and

Political Freedom and Democracy”. In this book he has shown that Islam does

not allow any kind of autocracy or monarchy. He also showed that Islam

spreads through political freedom. He stated that Islam unlike democracy is

a complete code of life, which encompasses many more vital issues of human

needs. Above all, he thinks democracy is consistent with Islam and the

fundamental rights of mankind prescribed in Islam can be ensured through

democracy. He has advocated in favor of democratic system and political

freedom. But he suggested to introduce a clause in the constitution to the

effect that no law will be passed contrary to the injunctions of the Quran

and Sunnah. This clause will act as guarantee against the fear of some

people that anti Islamic law may be passed under the cover of democracy.

Dr. Qardawi writes:

 

“ It is the duty of the ( Islamic) Movement in the coming phase to stand

firm against totalitarian and dictatorial rule, political despotism and

usurpation of people’s rights. The movement should always stand by

political freedom, as represented by true , not false, democracy. It should

flatly declare its refusal of tyrants and steer clear of all dictators,

even if some tyrant appears to have good intentions towards it for some

gain and for a time that is usually short, as has been shown by experience.

 

The Prophet (SAWS) said , “ When you see my Nation fall victim to fear and

does not say to wrong-doer , “ You are wrong”, then you may lose hope in

them. “ So how about a regime that forces people to say to a conceited

wrongdoer, “ How just, how great you are. O our hero, our savior and our

liberator!”

 

The Quran denounces tyrants such as Nimrudh, Pharoah, Haman and others, but

it also dispraises those who follow tyrants and obey their orders. This is

why Allah dispraises the people of Noah by saying, “ But they follow (men)

whose wealth and children give them no increase but only loss.” [surat Nuh

: 21]

 

Allah also says of Ad, people of Hud, “ And followed the command of every

powerful, obstinate transgressor”.[ Sura HUD : 59]

 

See also what the Quran says about the people of Pharoah, “ But they

followed the command of Pharaoh, and the command of Pharoah was not rightly

guided.[ Surat Hud : 97] “ Thus he made fools of his people, and they

obeyed him : truly they were a people rebellious (against Allah) .” [ Sura

Az- Zukhruf : 54]

 

A closer look at the history of the Muslim Nation and the Islamic Movement

in modern times should show clearly that the Islamic idea, the Islamic

Movement and the Islamic Awakening have never flourished or borne fruit

unless in an atmosphere of democracy and freedom, and have withered and

become barren only at the times of oppression and tyranny that trod over

the will of the people by force which clung to Islam. Such oppressive

regimes imposed their Secularism, Socialism, or Communism on their people

by force and coercion, using covert torture and public executions, and

employing those devilish tools that tore flesh, shed blood, crushed bone

and destroyed the soul.

 

On the other hand, we saw the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening

bear fruit and flourish at the times of freedom and democracy, and in the

wake of the collapse of imperial regimes that ruled peoples with fear and

oppression.

 

Therefore, I would not imagine that the Islamic Movement could support

anything other than political freedom and democracy.”

 

“ However, the tools and guarantees created by democracy are as close as

can ever be to the realization of the political principles brought to this

earth by Islam to put a leash on the ambitions and whims of rulers. These

principles are: shura (consultation), good advice enjoining what is proper

and forbidding what is evil, disobeying illegal orders, resisting unbelief

and changing wrong by force whenever possible. It is only in democracy and

political freedom that the power of Parliament is evident and that people’s

deputies can withdraw confidence from any government that breaches the

Constitution, and it is only in such an environment that the strength of

free press, free Parliament, opposition and the masses is most felt.”

(Quoted from ‘Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase’,

Chapter : The movement and political Freedom and Democracy)

 

It is evident from the above discussion that Islamic thinkers and Muslim

people want their right to vote, rule of law, and a government that is to

be elected by the people. The term democracy mean all these things. Taking

everything into consideration, we can say that there is no problem to

accept democracy as a political structure and as a concept of freedom

(except its concept of sovereignty). We find that different constitutions

and Islamic scholars conditionally accepted the term ‘democracy’. Muslim

community can accept this term. This will help to remove misunderstanding

about Islam that it is for violence and dictatorship.