Defining Democracy in Islamic Polity

Posted on January 17, 2010 by admin

Defining Democracy in Islamic Polity

Muhammad Khalid Masud

(Draft paper for discussion in the International Conference on The Future of Islam, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Era of Globalization, 5-6 December 2004, organized by the International Centre for Islam and Pluralism, Jakarta .)

Whether democracy is compatible with Islam or not has been under discussion for more than a century. The issue has again come into focus in the wake of the war on terrorism. The assumption is that terrorism is a consequence of undemocratic and authoritarian polities. Broadly speaking, three views have emerged in this regard. One view, often favored by the Western media, holds that Muslim societies are unable to develop a liberal culture and hence Muslim countries have not been able to achieve democracy. Another, although a majority view among Muslim intellectuals, and not generally supported by the political practice, claims that democracy is not only compatible with Islamic teachings but also that Islamic polities in history have been more democratic than any other system in the world. The third view maintains that democracy is a foreign Western concept and does not go along with Islamic teachings. Islamic democracy, i.e. a democracy defined from the perspective, differs from Western democracy in form as well as in objectives. Whatever the perspective, studies on Islam and democracy never fail to stress the point that building democracy in Muslim countries is a formidable task. United States Institute of Peace Report on this subject opens with the following statement: Democracy building remains an uphill struggle in most Muslim countries (Special Report 93, 2002).

The present essay analyzes the following four texts that illustrate these three views.

1. Martin Kramer, Islam vs. Democracy (1996),

2. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, The Prophet and his Message (1987)

3. Amin Ahsan Islahi, Islami Riyasat (1977), and

4. Qari Tayyib, Fitri Hukumat (1963).

The analysis explores the question: why building democracy is such a formidable task.

Martin Kramer

Martin Kramer is a senior associate (and past director) of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University . He is also the Wexler-Fromer Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy . Graduate from Princeton and Columbia , Dr. Kramer has been a visiting professor at Brandeis University , the University of Chicago , Cornell University , and Georgetown University . His authored and edited books include Islam Assembled ; Shiism, Resistance and Revolution; Middle Eastern Lives ; Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival ; The Islamism Debate ; The Jewish Discovery of Islam ; and Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America .

Islam is not campatible with democracy

Martin Kramer (1996) argues that Islam is the reason that so many Muslim countries are not democratic. Contrary to the various writings of the Western scholars on Islam, Kramer insists that Muslim communities have been authoritarian and have resisted any idea opposite to authoritarianism. Islamic countries have produced no democratic movement. The various Islamic movements that have emerged during the last century are entirely opposed to democracy. They have rejected democracy as part of Westernism. He also disagrees with the scholars of Middle East who view that since 1979 a number of Islamic movements transformed themselves into populist movements against state. Kramer explains that it was so because these movements mainly arose in opposition to the ruling parties. The discontent with the states which were unable to provide solutions made them popular among the masses. The movements remained fundamentalist and violent. They participated in the political system and won elections in Egypt in 1987, in Tunisia in 1989, in Jordon in 1989 and in Algeria in 1990. Because these political parties faired well in electoral politics, Western scholars treated them as democratic movements and predicted that they will pave the way for fuller

democracy. These scholars were not happy at the victory of fundamentalism but they interpreted this victory in the light of what they called theory of initial advantage. They argued that for the reason that the Muslim communities are not used to democracy and electoral politics, the fundamentalist groups naturally take advantage of the situation. The scholars, however, believed that eventually the fundamentalists will lose and real democracy of the masses and majority will prevail. Some political scientists also described FIS victory in Algeria as a protest vote, and hence not really significant. According to Kramer these predictions and theories are a blind spot and a self deception. In fact fundamentalism is neither a fad nor a temporary phenomenon. This is something very basic to Islamic thinking and culture. Consequently free elections will always strengthen fundamentalism and give them victory. In Kramers view, the Islamic fundamentalism is full of paradoxes and contradictions. Firstly Islamic fundamentalism is not reconciling with democratic values. Secondly the fundamentalists believe in the authority of Sharia, which is a divine and immutable. Furthermore, Sharia law supports inequality of women and non-Muslims and contravenes human rights. In this sense, rule of law, as preached by Muslim fundamentalist is not a democratic value but an authoritarian principle. Thirdly, the Islamists also speak of the principle of Shura, consultation, which they claim defines Islamic democracy. However, this Shura is subjected to the authority of Sharia, and not binding. Kramer also rejects the idea of the western scholars that fundamentalism is not real threat to the west. He argues that in the Islamist thinking west stands as an enemy of Islam, an enmity which can never be reconciled.

In fine, according to Kramer Islam is not only undemocratic but also a real and constant threat to the west and democratic institutions. Kramer seems to have taken a very difficult position. It simply holds that Muslims cannot be democratic unless they give up Islam. For him, majority opinion, elections, participation of the masses do not count as ingredients of democracy.

Khalifa Abdul Hakim (d. 1959)

Khalifa Abdul Hakim received his doctorate in Philosophy from Heidelberg University , Germany . Having retired as Professor and Chairman, Department of Philosophy, Usmania University , Hyderabad , India , he was appointed Director, Institute of Islamic Culture , Lahore in 1950 and held that position till his death. In addition to Urdu translations of Histories of Philosophy by Weber and

Hoffdings, and William Jamess Varieties of Religious Experience , his principal works include The Metaphysics of Rumi , Islamic Ideology , Islam and Communism , and Prophet Muhammad and his Mission .

Democracy is Compatible with Islam

Khalifa Abdul Hakim (1987) argues that the question about the compatibility of democracy to Islam continues to be problematic not because Islam is not favorable, but because Democracy is not definable. Early Greek philosophers, like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, regarded democracy irrational, unnatural and disgraceful. Aristotle regards the concept of equality of all human beings as unnatural. Nature has not created humankind equal; some of them are born slaves. Plato explained that social systems which are the foundation for a political system are hierarchical. Majority of human kind are born to serve others. Only the elite can rule. Hence only a philosopher King is an ideal ruler. Looking at European history also we find democracy problematic. Magna Carta, which is often claimed to be the starting point for democracy, was in fact the product of negotiations between the king and the landed aristocracy; it was a declaration that limited the authority of a king and protected the rights of the elite. It was not governed by the principle of liberty and equality.

In the nineteenth and twentieth century also, it was aristocracy who ruled in the name of the people. Macaulay envisioned no power for the common man. Our democracy was from an early period the most aristocratic and our aristocracy the most democratic, said Macaulay.

Consequently, during the twentieth century democracy in Europe produced Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy . In both systems, majority suppressed minorities. Same was the phenomenon of communism in Europe . Communism decried capitalism as it did not allow power to peasants and workers. However, ethnic majorities in Soviet Union suppressed minorities. It is thus difficult to define democracy in the European historical context. It was the elite who ruled in the name of the people.

Democracy is problematic to define in the Muslim world as well. There is no word for democracy in Islamic languages. The various terms used to translate the idea have semantic fields that do not correspond with the idea of democracy. The term Jamhuriyyat, for instance, was coined in probably

twentieth century to translate democracy. The word Jamhur has an altogether different connotation in Islamic tradition, often meaning an undefined majority. The Muslim societies have not been able to develop an ideology or institution of democracy because democracy remains undefined.

Traditional terms like Khalifa, Amir, Sultan and other terms do not convey a sense of democracy. In Islamic thought sovereignty always belonged to God. There was no idea of the sovereignty of the people. The political theorists regarded Khalifa as a deputy of God.

Summarizing the various political theories developed by Muslim thinkers Hakim delineates the following twelve principles in Islamic political thought.

Sovereignty belongs to God alone.

Human kind is given free will.

Islam allows no compulsion; freedom is a religious right.

State in Islam is ideological.

Non-Muslims are full citizens. They have a choice to pay poll tax to be exempted from military service.

Islam allows no racial discrimination.

Islam allows no economic exploitation.

Women have an important role to play in society.

Islam does not support monarchy.

Islam allows free vote. Hence election is permissible because Islam prescribes no specific form of voting.

 Islam allows no priesthood and no religious authority.

Judiciary is independent from the executive.

Khalifa concludes that parliamentary form of government is un-Islamic because it gives undue significance to political parties.

Speaking on equality, Khalifa defines it as equality before law, which does not recognize equality of wisdom. People have different intellectual levels. Shura therefore cannot be assigned as a right to illiterate masses. Adult franchise serves one purpose: it elects people of wisdom who are knowledgeable, men of integrity and are wealthy. They form the Shura. Democracy to Khalifa means protection of the rights of the people and extinction of all privileged classes.

Democracy, Hakim concludes, is compatible with Islam becaus e according to the Quran all men are created equal. However, they have some rights which are natural which must be protected and in that sense they are all equal. The principle of equality guarantees that right. Only a theistic religion can provide that protection. Islams original vision calls for democracy.

Qari Tayyib (d. 1983)

Qari Thayyib was a grandson of Mawlana Nanautawi, the founder of the well-known Deoband seminary in India . Born in 1897, he studied at Darul Ulum Deoband.

After graduation he started teaching in Darul Ulum. In 1924 he was appointed pro-vice-chancellor of the Darul Ulum and in 1929, vice chancellor.

He was a very popular speaker and educationist. He took interest in philosophical issues and modernity. Some of his popular works include the following.

Attashabbuh fiI-lslam, Mashahir-e Ummat, Kalimat-e Tayyibat, Atyabus-Thamar fi Masalatil-Qaza wal-Qadar, Science Awr Islam, Talimat-e Islam Awr Masihi Aqwam, Masala-e Zuban-e Urdu Hindustan Men, Din-o-Siyasat, Asbab-e Urooj-o Zawal-e Aqwam, Islami Azadi ka Mukammal

Program, AI-Ijtehad wal-Taqlid, Usool-e Dawat-e Islam, Islami Masawat, Tafsir-e Sura-e FiI, Fitri Hukumat, etc.

Natural state

In his book Natural State , Qari Tayyib states that Nature symbolizes Divine kingdom, which is the best example of a balanced system. The government on earth is Khilafat (deputy of God), which establishes a system of government on the pattern of the Divine natural state. Islamic caliphate is distinct from all other systems because in these systems humans assume the Divine authority. Islamic system of government also differs from others in the following aspects.

God alone is the legislator.

The ruler is bound to consult and is bound to abide by the consultation.

Majority does not constitute a binding advice; the binding advice is the one that is the most reasonable.

Majority view is decisive only to settle a point where opinions are divided.

Khilafat does not work for material objectives.

Khilafat system does not allow party system.

Having summarized Tayyibs discussion of an Islamic system of government, let me quote an extract from this book (English translation is mine).

Imaret (leadership, government), without Shura is tyranny (istibdad) and dictatorship, and Shura without Amir is anarchy (fawdawiyyat) and de-centrism (la markaziyyat). In its most excellent form of a comprehensive and moderate religion, Islam combines autocracy and democracy. Calling for obligatory obedience to an Amir Islam has prevented disorder so that the divine vice-regency (Khilafat Ilahi) is secure from chaos of the selfish opinions and form the interference of the masses (awamm). Constituting an influential Shura, Islam has abolished the possibility of the tyranny and absolutism of

the Amir, in order that Umma as a whole may not suffer from the individualism, selfishness and chaos. Consequently, an Islamic government combines autocracy and democracy, neither is autocracy independent of democracy, nor is democracy independent of autocracy (Tayyib 1963, 220).

Majority opinion has no legal ( shari ) value except that this principle can be employed to settle an issue where an issue is equivocal and both of its sides are equally permissibleprovided this majority consists of honest people. Certainly, the minority of trustworthy and honest people whose wisdom and taste is well-known is preferable than the majority of those who are dishonest and unscrupulous. .. The opinion of the people (Awamm) also does not qualify as majority opinion that can validly decide between equivocal issues; it is the opinion of the scholars (ahl-i ilm o fadl) who possess the legislative sense (dhawq tashri) and are well versed in the philosophy of law (hikmat shariat). On the other hand, the opinion of the ordinary people (awamm al-nas) has no value, even if they have total consensus about a certain matter (Tayyib 1963, 219).

Amin Ahsan Islahi (d. 1997)

Born in 1904 at Bhamhur, a village in Azamgarh, UP, India , Amin Ahsan Islahi was an eminent Islamic scholar of the Quran. A student of Hamiduddin Farahi, Islahi was appointed a principal of Madrasah Al-Islah, in India . His monumental nine volume Urdu Tafsir, Tadabbur-i-Quran .

Like many of his scholarly contemporaries, Islahi was also influenced by the Indian freedom movement and, for some time, he acted as the president of the local Congress party. Freedom of India , and by implication of the Muslims, from the British imperialism, was of paramount importance to him, as it indeed was in the eyes of other ulama. In t he early 1930s, when Mawlana Mawdudi called for the formation of an Islamic party dedicated to presenting and projecting Islam as a complete way of life and founded Jamaat-e-Islami in 1941 Islahi was one of its founding members.

In the Jamaat, Islahi occupied a position, second only to Mawdudi. Islahi actively worked in the election campaigns of the Jamaat, but his heart was never in politics. He left the Jamaat in 1958 over some policy differences.

He considered electioneering a useless exercise for the purposes of bringing about an Islamic change. According to him the politicians cannot establish Islam: their sole aim is to gain power, by whatsoever means possible.

In his view, the Pakistani society was a broken and disintegrated one, afflicted with a most dangerous malaise: hypocrisy. As such he differed with the view that if free and fair elections were held the masses would vote for Islam and Islamic parties.

In 1956, the government of Pakistan appointed Mawlana Islahi a member of the Islamic Law Commission, which was abolished in 1958.

Islahi also wrote frequently on political issues. His book on Islamic state (1977) provides an insight into Islahis political thought. The following is a summary of his main points.

Concept of Islamic State:

Natural (Fitri) human beings are naturally conscious of its presence

Human beings are not absolutely independent, they are deputies of God (Naib)

Sovereignty belongs to God

Khilafat is by choice, every human being is neither capable nor obliged to be a Kha lifa

The duties and functions of Khilafa defined by God

Shariat, revealed is the basis of Islamic state

Khilafat is not nation, but principle and universal.

To Islahi, an Islamic state (Khilafat) does not differ much from an ordinary state in its formal and material structure (population, territory, internal independence, political institution); it differs in principles and objectives. Khilafat means complete equality; Khilafat is not limited to a class or

person. He, however, regards both parliamentary and presidential systems, as currently in vogue, against Islam. Muslims have a limited right to legislate, in such matters which are not clearly given in the Quran and Sunna. Distinction between state and government, Khilafat (state), Government (Imamate, Amarat).

Defining sovereignty, Islahi classifies it into two types: takwini, and tashrii. Tashrii (legislative) sovereignty belongs to God who revealed His laws through the Prophets. Ulul Amr (the rulers) are executors of Tashrii hakimiyyat (legislative sovereignty).

Having summarized the main points, let me quote an extract from his book (English translation is mine).

The Position of People in an Islamic State

In a secular (la dini) democratic state (Jamhuri riyasat), sovereignty (hakimiyyat) belongs to the people. But as we have explained, in an Islamic state sovereignty belongs to God. Islamic state is not a democratic nation-state (qawmi riyasat) in which every inhabitant in the country is assumed to be a partner in the sovereignty. It is rather an ideological (usuli) state in which only those are responsible for the formation and administration of the state that believe in Islam and abide by the Islamic code of life. Sovereignty does not belong to even these Muslim people (Jamhur Muslimin). They have authority only to apply the Divine law (Sharia), and to form a political system within the laws and the limits prescribed by God. They have no authority more or less than that. They have no right to legislate disregarding the laws of God, nor have they authority to establish a political system beyond the boundaries fixed by God and His Prophet. If they do so, it amounts to treason against God.

The real religious and legal status of the Muslim people (Jamhur Muslimin) is that they are servants (slaves) of God (ibad Allah). God has given them the choice (ikhtiyar) to establish a certain type of political system n order to perform their duties as slaves of God, and to appoint a head (sar barah) from amongst you a slave who is the most committed to my obedience. Sovereignty in Islam nevertheless is concentrated in God. As to the choice that people are free to obey or disobey God, there is no doubt that God has established His Legal government (tashrii hukumat) on the basis of choice

(ikhtiyar), not coercion (jabr). But this choice does not mean that God has entrusted sovereignty to the people (Islahi 1977, 21).

In Islam Shura is clearly defined (mutaayyan) and the Amir is bound by the decision of the majority. However, in early Islam since all the opinion leaders (ahl al-ray) were living in the centre, the leaders of the groups and tribes were appointed in view of the demands of the social system of the time, the jurisdiction of the state was very wide, the Shura system was very simple. Today, the situation is different. Hence we may opt for the modern method of elections with necessary modifications. We may also develop necessary regulations to define the relationships between the Amir and the Shura. It will not be against the view of Islam (Islahi 1977, 38).

Analysis and conclusion

Defining democracy in Islamic polity the scholars seem to focus on the following issues. Rule of law, equality, freedom, liberty, right to vote, elections, party system, parliamentary system, legislative authority, a states right to legislate, forms of government, and sovereignty. Although most writers speak about the participation of the people or masses in the governance, and some even speak of the sovereignty of the people, but the real problem is the recognition of the role, place and right of a common man in government. There is still a mistrust of a common man. Masses are not qualified to govern themselves. They can vote to elect their representatives who then govern. They are distinguished from the masses; the representatives are from the elite, propertied, learned etc. They must be the wise people. This mistrust of the masses is not peculiar to Muslim thinkers; it is also present in the Western supporters of democracy.

The eminence of the wise and the expert is present in both Muslim and Western thinking.

In Muslim thought the issue is debated with reference to sovereignty. Sovereignty belongs to God alone. The complex question is who represents God? How is this sovereignty exercised? The question is answered in a twofold formula. Sovereignty of God is expr essed through Sharia because it is revealed by God. Since only the experts in Islamic tradition can properly interpret Sharia, they alone can represent the sovereignty of God.

Islamic modernists, e.g. Khalifa Abdul Hakim, argue that sovereignty indeed belongs to God but since Islam does not allow any priesthood or monarchy and the Khalifa exercises a delegated authority, in fact sovereignty is delegated to the Muslim community, or Umma as a whole.

In Islamic history, this question was first raised by the Khawarij, opponents of Caliph Ali. They raised the slogan: La hukma illa lillah (Only God is the arbiter). The same slogan is raised by some Muslim political groups today; they translate it as: Sovereignty belongs to God alone. Replying to the Khawarij, Caliph Ali explained that the slogans wording was pious but the intentions were wrong. One can understand Alis explanation when one looks at the history of Khawarij. They were extremely pious people in their personal life, but in their political life they resorted to intolerance and violence. Mainly, because they confused the idea of Hukm and could not distinguish between a political sovereignty of a state and the cosmological divine sovereignty.

The crucial question for the political theorists in Islam has been who represents God, or who wields authority on His behalf. There is no church in Islam and hence there is no religious authority. Islam also does not recognize monarchy and allows no landed aristocracy the right to rule the Umma. It was during the period of Arab imperialism that monarchical institutions were introduced. Throughout a common man had no say in these matters.

On the other hand we find the idea of Ijma and Shura also shifted from community to the elite and to the experts in Sharia.

In my view, the real issue in defining democracy rests in the value and place assigned to common man as an individual. This needs further investigation.

In the extracts discussed above, it is clear that the scholars are not ready to recognize this role for the common man. Even Martin Kramer is afraid of the common man. He fears that fair elections will bring up the common man. He is not ready to allow this right to a common man unless he is deIslamised.

This essay argues that in spite of emergence of democracy in the Western systems, the concept is still in the making. The main problem is the fundamental paradigm shift in political thinking. The emphasis on the role of masses in the present political systems is not yet fully developed.

References

Abootalebi, Ali R. 1999. Islam, Islamists, and democracy, Middle East Review of International Affairs , Vol. 3, No. 1: March. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue1/jv3n1a2

Islahi, Amin Ahsan. 1977. Islami Riyasat . Lahore : Anjuman Khuddamul Quran.

Esposito,

John

L.

and

John

O.

Voll.

2001.

Islam

and

Democracy.

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2001 -11/islam.html

Hakim, Khalifa Abdul-. 1987. The Prophet and his Message. Lahore : Institute of Islamic Culture.

Kramer, Martin. 1996. Islam vs. Democracy, Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival. New Brunswick , N.J. : Transaction Publishers. Pp. 265-78.

http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/IslamvsDemocracy.html

Tayyib, Qari. 1963. Fitri Hukumat . Lahore : Idara Islamiyyat.

United

States

Institute

of

Peace.

2002.

Islam

and

Democracy

Special

report

93,

September. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr93.html