Democracy
To understand the relationship between democracy and Islam we first need to make it clear that what we mean by 'democracy'.This is how the Oxford dictionary defines Democracy:
“a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy
A question may be asked: "How might the whole population or the eligible members of a state contribute in governing the country?"
Based on what we see today an obvious answer will be: "Through election".
Election is in fact a form of decision making on the basis of "consultation" in which the person who is consulted can answer Yes or No, or can name one person or one party as his/her response.
Now look at the following part of the verse 42:38 in the Qur’an:
وَ أَمْرُهُمْ شُورى بَيْنَهُم … ...
" … and their affair is based on consultation among each other …" (32:38)
The above is in fact a declaration of democracy (in its broad and general meaning) and rejection of dictatorship in Islam.
The system of government at the time of the first four Khalifs of Islam was among the most democrat ones in that region of the world (and this does not mean that these systems were flaw less).
Even at the time of the Prophet (pbuh), major decisions about non-religious matters would normally take place after consultation with people involved.
In fact the Arab community even before Islam was used to the process of making decisions based on consultation.
In other words Islam entered a society in which democracy, in its broad sense, was already practiced. This was then encouraged and improved in Islam by adding justice and moral dimensions into it.
At the early time after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), representatives of different tribes would have a say (or at least would be expected to have a say) in electing the Khalifa and in managing the affairs of the country. From political point of view, the tribal system of that era was very similar to the system of political parties at our time. I do not see much difference between what we call a parliament at our time and what was called the Shora of Umar (ra) at his time where the tribe elders would gather to reach a decision in the presence of the Khalifa.
Later Khalifs who took the office based on inheritance (like kings) and those who later created a full dictatorship system in which all decisions were made by the king or a life time president were not following the above verse of the Qur’an.
So the main principle of democracy, that is running affairs based on consultation, not only is NOT against Islam, but is in fact instructed by Islam. Of course when it comes to application of the directive, that is, how to implement a system based on democracy, then there can be different options and different social and political preferences. Each Muslim nation will have to decide (on the basis of consultation) that which or what consultancy system is best suited for the requirements of their country and citizens. In doing so, they may adopt any existing model of democracy or may form a new style of democracy.
*******
Answers to two common questions when discussing democracy and Islam are as follows:
1. “Parliament can make God's haram, halal, by majority. For example they can make alcohol halal .”
I understand the above question in two ways. I answer both of them:
- If the above means that the parliament may decide to allow alcohol being sold in the country despite considering it Haram, then this may not necessarily be against religion. There may be minority non-Muslims and tourists who consider consuming alcohol to be their right. An Islamic state may decide that this should not be allowed. On the other hand the Islamic state may decide that while Muslims are forbidden to consume alcohol, producing and selling alcohol by non-Muslims for non-Muslims should be allowed. This will be a matter of Ijtihad and political decision and is not a purely religious matter.
- If the above means the parliament announcing alcohol to be Halal for Muslims then in principle there can be two reasons for this:
One: The parliament is not really representing the majority view
Two: The parliament is in fact representing the majority view
In the first case, then obviously this is not a democratic system so it is not relevant to the subject.
In the second case, this means that majority of the nation do not wish to abide by the rules of Islam or some of the rules of Islam. We need to bear in mind that God and His prophets never imposed religious law to a society. If the majority of a nation does not want to abide a religious law then it will not be the duty of the minority to impose it on them. The majority will be responsible for this disobedience while the minority will remain clean from it. The minority then needs to try to become the majority or to change the view of the majority. In the most extreme cases where there seems to be no hope, the minority may even decide to migrate to a country where they feel more comfortable to practice their religion.
As Muslims, we are not obliged to force Islam on people and forcefully send them to heaven! We are only obliged to follow Islam ourselves and to advice others about it as well. We have contemporary examples of nations where a minority group decided to impose their understanding of Islam on the majority. Did it work? Is it working? Did they manage to create an ‘Islamic Society’?
2. “Vote of a bad person like an alcoholic and the vote of a noble man can't be equal.”
This again is the area of application. In every democratic system there are some conditions for those who are eligible to vote. An Islamic state may decide to implement a system whereby those who have been recently known by the court to be heavy alcohol drinkers are not eligible to vote until they get all clear from the court. One may argue however that even a ‘bad person’ is eligible to decide about the future of his country. Again this is a matter of application and Ijtihad which can itself be decided based on consultation and the majority vote of the representatives of the citizens.
The consulting system at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the first Khalifs was devoid from such flaw because it was not all individuals who would vote, but it was their representatives who would be consulted and if needed vote for a decision. These representatives are normally selected based on the respect and good characteristics that they possess in the eyes of those who they represent.
May 2013
“a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy
A question may be asked: "How might the whole population or the eligible members of a state contribute in governing the country?"
Based on what we see today an obvious answer will be: "Through election".
Election is in fact a form of decision making on the basis of "consultation" in which the person who is consulted can answer Yes or No, or can name one person or one party as his/her response.
Now look at the following part of the verse 42:38 in the Qur’an:
وَ أَمْرُهُمْ شُورى بَيْنَهُم … ...
" … and their affair is based on consultation among each other …" (32:38)
The above is in fact a declaration of democracy (in its broad and general meaning) and rejection of dictatorship in Islam.
The system of government at the time of the first four Khalifs of Islam was among the most democrat ones in that region of the world (and this does not mean that these systems were flaw less).
Even at the time of the Prophet (pbuh), major decisions about non-religious matters would normally take place after consultation with people involved.
In fact the Arab community even before Islam was used to the process of making decisions based on consultation.
In other words Islam entered a society in which democracy, in its broad sense, was already practiced. This was then encouraged and improved in Islam by adding justice and moral dimensions into it.
At the early time after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), representatives of different tribes would have a say (or at least would be expected to have a say) in electing the Khalifa and in managing the affairs of the country. From political point of view, the tribal system of that era was very similar to the system of political parties at our time. I do not see much difference between what we call a parliament at our time and what was called the Shora of Umar (ra) at his time where the tribe elders would gather to reach a decision in the presence of the Khalifa.
Later Khalifs who took the office based on inheritance (like kings) and those who later created a full dictatorship system in which all decisions were made by the king or a life time president were not following the above verse of the Qur’an.
So the main principle of democracy, that is running affairs based on consultation, not only is NOT against Islam, but is in fact instructed by Islam. Of course when it comes to application of the directive, that is, how to implement a system based on democracy, then there can be different options and different social and political preferences. Each Muslim nation will have to decide (on the basis of consultation) that which or what consultancy system is best suited for the requirements of their country and citizens. In doing so, they may adopt any existing model of democracy or may form a new style of democracy.
*******
Answers to two common questions when discussing democracy and Islam are as follows:
1. “Parliament can make God's haram, halal, by majority. For example they can make alcohol halal .”
I understand the above question in two ways. I answer both of them:
- If the above means that the parliament may decide to allow alcohol being sold in the country despite considering it Haram, then this may not necessarily be against religion. There may be minority non-Muslims and tourists who consider consuming alcohol to be their right. An Islamic state may decide that this should not be allowed. On the other hand the Islamic state may decide that while Muslims are forbidden to consume alcohol, producing and selling alcohol by non-Muslims for non-Muslims should be allowed. This will be a matter of Ijtihad and political decision and is not a purely religious matter.
- If the above means the parliament announcing alcohol to be Halal for Muslims then in principle there can be two reasons for this:
One: The parliament is not really representing the majority view
Two: The parliament is in fact representing the majority view
In the first case, then obviously this is not a democratic system so it is not relevant to the subject.
In the second case, this means that majority of the nation do not wish to abide by the rules of Islam or some of the rules of Islam. We need to bear in mind that God and His prophets never imposed religious law to a society. If the majority of a nation does not want to abide a religious law then it will not be the duty of the minority to impose it on them. The majority will be responsible for this disobedience while the minority will remain clean from it. The minority then needs to try to become the majority or to change the view of the majority. In the most extreme cases where there seems to be no hope, the minority may even decide to migrate to a country where they feel more comfortable to practice their religion.
As Muslims, we are not obliged to force Islam on people and forcefully send them to heaven! We are only obliged to follow Islam ourselves and to advice others about it as well. We have contemporary examples of nations where a minority group decided to impose their understanding of Islam on the majority. Did it work? Is it working? Did they manage to create an ‘Islamic Society’?
2. “Vote of a bad person like an alcoholic and the vote of a noble man can't be equal.”
This again is the area of application. In every democratic system there are some conditions for those who are eligible to vote. An Islamic state may decide to implement a system whereby those who have been recently known by the court to be heavy alcohol drinkers are not eligible to vote until they get all clear from the court. One may argue however that even a ‘bad person’ is eligible to decide about the future of his country. Again this is a matter of application and Ijtihad which can itself be decided based on consultation and the majority vote of the representatives of the citizens.
The consulting system at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and the first Khalifs was devoid from such flaw because it was not all individuals who would vote, but it was their representatives who would be consulted and if needed vote for a decision. These representatives are normally selected based on the respect and good characteristics that they possess in the eyes of those who they represent.
May 2013
