Islamic Definition of Democracy
According to the Holy Quran, people have a free choice to adopt any system of rule which suits them. Democracy, sovereignty, tribal or feudal systems are valid provided they are accepted by the people as the traditional heritage of their society.
However, it seems that democracy is preferred and highly commended in the Holy Quran. The Muslims are advised to have a democratic system though not exactly on the pattern of Western-style democracy.
Islam does not present a hollow definition of democracy anywhere in the Holy Quran. It only deals with principles of vital significance and leaves the rest to the people. Follow and benefit, or stray and be destroyed.
Two Pillars of Islamic Concept of Democracy
There are only two pillars to the Islamic concept of democracy. These are:
1) Democratic process of elections must be based on trust and integrity. Islam teaches that whenever you exercise your vote, do it with the consciousness that God is watching over you and will hold you responsible for your decision. Vote for those who are most capable of discharging their national trust and are in themselves trustworthy. Implicit in this teaching is the requirement that the ones entitled to vote, must exercise their voting right unless there are circumstances beyond their control or impediments exist in the exercise of that right.
2) Governments must function on the principle of absolute justice. The second pillar of Islamic democracy is that whenever you make decisions; make them on the principle of absolute justice. Be the matter political, religious, social or economic, justice may never be compromised. After the formation of government, voting within the party should also always remain oriented towards justice. Hence no partisan interest or political consideration should be permitted to influence the process of decision-making. In the long run, every decision taken in this spirit is bound to be truly of the people, by the people and for the people.
Two Pillars of Islamic Concept of Democracy
There are only two pillars to the Islamic concept of democracy. These are:
1) Democratic process of elections must be based on trust and integrity. Islam teaches that whenever you exercise your vote, do it with the consciousness that God is watching over you and will hold you responsible for your decision. Vote for those who are most capable of discharging their national trust and are in themselves trustworthy. Implicit in this teaching is the requirement that the ones entitled to vote, must exercise their voting right unless there are circumstances beyond their control or impediments exist in the exercise of that right.
2) Governments must function on the principle of absolute justice. The second pillar of Islamic democracy is that whenever you make decisions; make them on the principle of absolute justice. Be the matter political, religious, social or economic, justice may never be compromised. After the formation of government, voting within the party should also always remain oriented towards justice. Hence no partisan interest or political consideration should be permitted to influence the process of decision-making. In the long run, every decision taken in this spirit is bound to be truly of the people, by the people and for the people.
Mutual Consultation Preferred
The substance of democracy is very clearly discussed in the Holy Quran and as far as the advice to Muslims is concerned, though monarchy has never been ruled out as an irreligious and ungodly institution, democracy is most certainly preferred to all other forms of government. Describing the ideal Muslim society, the Holy Quran declares:
“Whatever you have been given is only a temporary provision of this life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord; and those who eschew the graver sin and indecencies, and when they are wroth they forgive; and those who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer and whose affairs are administered by mutual consultation, and who spend out of whatever We have provided for them; and those who, when a wrong is done them, defend themselves.” (Ch 42, Verse 37–40)
The Arabic words amruhum shura bainahum (whose affairs are administered by mutual consultation) relate to the political life of the Muslim society, clearly indicating that in matters of government, its decisions are made through mutual consultation, which, of course, reminds one of the first part of the definition of democracy i.e. government of the people. The common will of the people becomes the ruling will of the people through mutual consultation.
The second part of the definition of democracy relates to by the people. This is clearly referred to in the following part of the verse:
“Allah commands you to make over the trusts to those best fitted to discharge them.”(Ch. 4: 59)
This means that whenever you express your will to choose your rulers, always place the trust where it rightfully belongs. The right of the people to choose their rulers is of course mentioned but incidentally. The real emphasis is on how one should exercise this right. The Muslims are reminded that it is not just a question of their personal will which they can exercise in any way that they please, but far more than that, it is a question of national trust. In matters of trust, you are not left with many choices. You must discharge the trust with all honesty, integrity and a spirit of selflessness. The trust must repose where it truly belongs.
Many Muslim scholars quote this verse simply to indicate that Islam propounds the system and theory of democracy as understood in the Western political philosophy, but it is only partly true.
The system of consultation mentioned in the Holy Quran has no room for the party politics of the contemporary Western democracies nor does it give licence to the style and spirit of political debates in democratically elected parliaments and houses of representatives. As we have discussed this aspect in detail, no more is necessary here.
It should also be noted with regards to the second part of the definition of democracy that according to this concept of mutual consultation, the right to vote belongs to the voters almost absolutely without any provisos or conditions infringing this right. According to the established norms of democracy, the voter can cast his vote in favour of a puppet, or spoil or toss his ballot paper in a dustbin instead of the ballot box. He will remain irreproachable, nor can he be censured for violating any principles of democracy.
According to the Quranic definition, however, a voter is not the absolute master of his vote, but a trustee. As a trustee, he must discharge his trust fairly and squarely and place it where he feels it truly belongs. He must be vigilant and aware that he will be held responsible for his act in the sight of God.
In view of this Islamic concept, if a political party has nominated a candidate who an individual party member considers will fail to discharge his national trust, that member should quit the party rather than vote for someone who does not merit the trust. Loyalty to a party is not allowed to interfere in his choice.
Again, a trust must be discharged in good faith. Therefore, every voter must participate fully in exercising his vote during the elections unless he is unable to do so. Otherwise, he will have failed in the discharge of his own trust. The concept of abstention or refraining from exercising the vote, as happens in the USA where reportedly almost half the electorate actually bothers to vote, has no room in the Islamic concept of democracy.
The Confusion as to the True Nature of Islamic Government
It is becoming popular among Muslim political thinkers of the contemporary age to claim that Islam stands for democracy. According to their political philosophy, God being the ultimate authority, sovereignty belongs to Him.
Divine Authority
Absolute sovereignty belongs to God. The Holy Quran sums up His domain in the following verse:
“Then exalted be Allah, the True King. There is no god but He, the Lord of the Glorious Throne.” (Ch. 23:117)
The fundamental principle, that ultimately all rights to govern belong to God and He is the Lord of Sovereignty, is mentioned in different ways in the Holy Quran of which the above verse is but one example. In the running of political affairs, God’s sovereignty is expressed in two ways:
1. The Law (shariah) as derived from the Holy Quran, the conduct of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam and also from the established traditions attributed to him by early Muslims are supreme. They bear essential guidelines for legislation and no democratically elected government can interfere with the express Will of God.
2. No legislative process would be valid in contradiction of the aforesaid principle. Unfortunately, however, there is no unanimity among the scholars of various sects of Islam as to what are the clear-cut Laws (shariah). On this, all the scholars are agreed that legislation is the prerogative of God and that He has expressed His Will through the Quranic revelation to the Holy Founder(sa) of Islam.
Regarding the manner in which Muslim governments should be run, the popular idea is that in the day-to-day administrative matters, affairs and measures, the government, as representatives of the people, becomes instrumental in the expression of God’s Will. As sovereignty belongs to the people by way of delegated power, therefore, such a system is democratic.
Mullahism
This is the rigid view of the so-called orthodoxy who would come to an understanding with the modern democratic tendencies of the Muslim populace only on the condition that the mullah* be granted the ultimate right to judge the validity of democratic decisions on the basis of shariah.
If accepted, this demand would be tantamount to placing ultimate legislative authority not in the hands of God but in the hands of the orthodox or some other school of clergy. When you consider the awesome power placed in their hands in the background of fundamental differences prevailing among the Muslim clergy itself regarding their understanding of what is and what is not shariah, the consequences appear horrendous. There are so many schools of jurisprudence among the orthodoxy. Even within each school of jurisprudence, the clergy is not always unanimous on every edict. Again, their position regarding what the actual Will of God as expressed in Islamic shariah is has been changing in different periods of history.
This presents a complex problem to the contemporary world of Islam which still seems to be in search of its true identity. It is gradually becoming more apparent to Muslim intellectuals that the only meeting point amongst the clergy is their uncompromising demand for the enforcement of shariah.
The Iranian revolution has further whetted the appetite of the Mullah in countries where Sunni Muslims are a majority. According to them, if Khomeini can succeed, why must they fail? Beyond this lies their fantasia — the land of their dreams.
The masses are confused. Would you prefer the Word of God and that of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam or would you rather have men under a godless and fearless society to guide and shape your political manifestos? This question is extremely difficult for a common person, who finds himself in a state of bewilderment and confusion. The masses in many Muslim countries adore Islam and would readily die for the Will of God and the honour of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam. Yet there is something within the whole scenario, which leaves them confused, disturbed and very uneasy. Despite their love of God and that of the Holy Prophet(sa), it invokes many a bloody memory of governments in the past, which were either under the influence of mullahs or exploited mullahism to their political advantage.
As for the Muslim politicians, they seem to be divided and indecisive. Some cannot resist exploiting this situation by siding with the mullah and patronizing them. They cherish the secret hope, however, that at the time of elections, it will not be the mullah but they who will be elected as stalwart champions of shariah. The masses would prefer to trust them more as guardians of shariah than the mullah. Life would be easier and more down-to-earth in their hands than under the stiff and uncompromising control of the ‘custodians of heaven’. Most scrupulous amongst the politicians are the foresighted ones who consider this to be a dangerous game. Alas! They are fast turning into a minority. Politics and hypocrisy and truth and scruples, or for that matter any noble virtue, do not seem to go hand in hand. By and large, the intellectuals are inclined ever more towards democracy. They love Islam but are afraid of theocratic rule. They view democracy not as an alternative to Islam, but genuinely believe that as a political philosophy, it is the Holy Quran itself, which propounds democracy:
“Those who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer, and whose affairs are decided by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what we have provided for them.” (Ch. 42:39)
“And consult them in matters of administration; and when thou art determined, then put thy trust wholly in Allah. Surely, Allah loves those who put their trust in Him.” (Ch. 3:160)
As a net result of this tug of war between various factions, young Muslim countries, like Pakistan, find themselves in rigmarole of confusion and contradiction. The electorate is temperamentally averse to the return of the mullah to the constituent assemblies in any sizeable number. Even at the height of shariah fever, hardly five to ten percent of the mullahs succeed in winning elections. Yet, having committed themselves to the Law of God in return for additional support from the mullah, the politicians find themselves in a very unenviable position. Deep within, they are fully convinced that the acceptance of shariah is in reality paradoxical to the principle of legislature through a democratically elected house of representatives.
If the authority for legislation lies with God, which a Muslim cannot deny, then, as a logical consequence, it is the divines and the mullahs who possess the prerogative of understanding and defining the law of shariah. In this scenario, the whole exercise of electing legislative bodies would become futile and meaningless. After all, members of Parliament are not required to sign only on the dotted lines where the mullah so indicates. It is rather tragic that neither the politician nor the intellectual has ever genuinely attempted to understand the form or forms of government, which the Holy Quran really propounds or recognizes.
Divided Loyalties between the State and the Religion
There is no contradiction between the Word of God and Act of God. There is no clash between loyalty to one’s state and religion in Islam. But this question does not relate to Islam alone. There are many episodes in human history where many an established state was confronted with this question. The Roman Empire, particularly, during the first three centuries of the Christian period, blamed Christianity for split loyalties between the Empire and Christianity. This allegation from the state resulted in extremely barbaric and inhumane persecution of early Christians in their homes for the alleged crime of treason and disloyalty to the Emperor. Such struggle between the Church and the state has always been an important factor in shaping European history.
Napoleon Bonaparte, for instance, blamed Roman Catholicism for divided loyalties and asserted that the first loyalty would be to the French people and the government of France and no Vatican Pope would be permitted to govern the affairs of Roman Catholics in France nor would Roman Catholicism be permitted to interfere in the affairs of the state.
In recent history, my own community, the Ahmadi Muslims, in Pakistan faced serious problems on similar grounds. As the influence of medievalist clergy began to rise under the patronage of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the longest ruling military dictator of Pakistan, Ahmadis became increasingly popular victims of this age-old accusation of divided loyalties. The Government of Pakistan under General Zia even proceeded to issue a sort of White Paper against Ahmadis proclaiming that Ahmadis were neither loyal to Islam nor to the state of Pakistan.
It was the same spirit of madness possessing new subjects. The wine remains the same though the goblets have changed.
More recently, during the notorious Salman Rushdie affair, Muslims in Britain and many parts of Europe faced a similar problem of being accused of possessing divided loyalties. Although its intensity did not reach a fever pitch, yet the potent damage it poses to intercommunity relations should not be under-estimated.
Should Religion Have Exclusive Legislative Authority?
It is a universal phenomenon, therefore, which has never been seriously investigated. Neither politicians nor religious leaders have ever resolved the thin blue dividing line between religion and the state.
As far as the Christians are concerned, this issue should have stood resolved once for all when Jesus, gave his historic reply to the Pharisees:
Then he said to them: Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God. (Matthew 22:21)
These few words are profoundly rich with wisdom; all that need be said has been. Religion and statecraft are two of the many wheels of the wagon of society. It is, in reality, irrelevant whether there are two, four and eight wheels as long as they keep their orientation correct and revolve within their orbits. There can be no question of mutual conflict or confrontation.
In total agreement with its earlier Divine teachings, the Holy Quran elaborates this theme by clearly demarcating the sphere of activities of each component of society. It will be over-simplifying the matter if one conceives that there is no meeting point or common ground, which religion and the state share with each other. They do indeed overlap, but only in a spirit of cooperation with each other. There is no intent to monopolize.
For instance, a large part of moral education in each religion becomes an integral part of legislation in every state of the world. In some states, it may constitute a small part; in others a relatively larger part of the law. The penalties prescribed may be mild or harsh but religious disapprovals against many crimes, which are penalized, are always traceable without reference to religion. Though they may be in disagreement with many secular laws, yet, as far as people belonging to different religions are concerned, they seldom choose to come in confrontation with the established government on such issues.
This applies not only to Muslims or Christians but to all religions of the world equally as well. Of course, the pure Hindu laws of Manusmarti are at complete variance with the secular rule of political governments in India. Yet, somehow, people seem to live in a state of compromise. If religious law were invoked seriously against the prevailing political systems in different countries, the world would most certainly turn into a blood bath. But fortunately for man, this is not so.
As far as Islam is concerned, there should be no such problem because the ultimate and unyielding principle propounded by Islam in this regard is the principle of absolute justice. This principle remains central and fundamental to all forms of governments which claim to be Islamic in spirit.
Alas! This most pivotal point in understanding the Islamic concept of statecraft is little, if at all, understood by the political thinkers in Islam. They fail to make a distinction between the application of the common law relating to crimes, which are universal in nature and without any religious bearing, and such crimes as are specific to certain injunctions of that religion. Therefore, only adherents of such religions are liable for prosecution.
These two categories are not clearly defined. There is a fair size of grey area where common crimes can have religious or moral bearing as well as rank as offences against accepted human norms. For instance, the act of stealing is a crime varying in degrees of condemnation and prescribed punishment. Similarly, there is the question of murder, drinking and public disorder, which are partially or wholly forbidden by many religions. Some religions have prescribed specific punishments for these offences.
The question then arises as to how a state should dispense with such crimes. This question raises further the question of whether Islam at all gives a clear-cut and well-defined formula for a Muslim government and for a non-Muslim government to adopt. If a Muslim government has been defined as such in Islam, then other very important questions will be raised e.g. the validity of any state considering itself under some specific religious instruction and imposing that religion’s teachings upon all its citizens irrespective of whether or not they belong to that religion.
Religions have a duty to draw the attention of the legislature to moral issues. It is not necessary that all legislation be placed under the jurisdiction of religions.
With so many different sects and shades of varying beliefs between one sect and another and one religion and another, nothing short of total confusion and anarchy would be the result. Take for instance the punishment for alcohol. Although it is forbidden in the Holy Quran, there is no punishment specified by the Quran itself. Reliance is placed on some traditions, which are challenged by various schools of jurisprudence. In one locality or country, the punishment would be one thing and completely another elsewhere. Ignorance of the law would be rampant. What holds true for Islam is also true for other faiths. The Talmudic law would be totally impractical. The same can be said about Christianity.
A believer of any religion can practise his beliefs even under a secular law. He can abide by truth without any state law interfering with his ability to speak the truth. He can observe his Prayers and perform his acts of worship without the need of a specific law being passed by the state to permit him to do so.
This question can also be examined from another interesting angle. If Islam agrees with the question of a Muslim government in countries where Muslims are in the majority, then by the same token of absolute justice, Islam must concede the right to other governments to govern the countries according to the dictates of the religion of the majority. Therefore, in the next-door neighbour, India, Pakistan will have to concede Hindu law for all Indian citizens. That being so, it will indeed be a very tragic day for more than one hundred million Indian Muslims who would lose all their rights to honourable survival in India. Again, if India is to be ruled by Manusmarti, why should the state of Israel be denied the right to rule the Jews as well as the Gentiles by the law of Talmud? If this happens, life would become extremely miserable not only for the people of Israel but also a large number of Jews themselves.
But this concept of different religious states in different countries can only have a valid place in Islam if it propounds that in countries with a Muslim majority, Islamic shariah must prevail by force of law. This will again create a universally paradoxic situation because on the one hand, in the name of absolute justice, all states will be provided with the right to impose upon its people the law of the majority religion. On the other hand, each act of the religious minority in the countries of the world would be brought under the severe rule of a religion in which they do not believe. This will be an affront to the very concept of absolute justice.
This dilemma has neither been addressed nor attempted to be resolved by the proponents of Islamic law in the so-called Muslim states. According to my understanding of Islamic teachings, all states should be run on the same principle of absolute justice and as such every state becomes a Muslim state.
In view of these arguments and the over-riding concept of there being no compulsion in matters of faith, religion does not need to be the predominant legislative authority in the political affairs of a state.
Islamic Statecraft
My study has unambiguously revealed to me that the Holy Quran deals with the subject of government without making any distinction whatsoever between a Muslim and a non-Muslim state.
The instructions on how a state should be run are common to humanity though it is the believers who are primarily addressed in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran speaks of statecraft equally applicable to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Confucians, Christians, Jews and Muslims etc.
The essence of this instruction is contained in the verse quoted earlier and other similar verses, which we quote now.
“But no, by thy Lord, they will not truly believe until they make thee judge in all that is in dispute between them and they find not in their hearts any demur concerning that which thou decidest and submit with full submission.” (Ch 4:66)
“O ye who believe, be strict in observing justice and bear witness only for the sake of Allah, even if it be against your ownselves or against parents or kindred. Whether the person be rich or poor. In either case, Allah is more regardful of him than you could be. Therefore, follow not vain desires so that you may act equitably. And if you conceal the truth or evade it, then remember that Allah is well aware of that which you do.” (Ch. 4:136)
The traditions of the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam are very clear on this subject. He holds every ruler and anyone in authority over another, in the way he treats his subjects or those under his authority, as being directly answerable to God. But since these discussions have already been exhausted earlier, we need not discuss them further.
The substance of this study is that Islam propounds a completely neutral central government in which the matters of statecraft are common and equally applicable to all subjects of the state and religious differences are allowed to play no part therein.
Islam most certainly admonishes Muslims to follow the rule of the law in all worldly matters.
“O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. Then if you differ in anything refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best and most commendable in the end.” (Ch. 4:60)
But as far as relations between man and God are concerned, it is an area exclusive to religion and the state has no right to interfere. There is total freedom of mind and heart in the affairs of belief and profession of faith. It is a fundamental right of man not only to believe in anything, which he so pleases, but also to worship God or idols as dictated by his religion or pagan belief.
According to Islam, therefore, religion has no right to interfere in areas exclusive to the state nor has the state any right to interfere in areas commonly shared by them. Rights and responsibilities are so clearly defined in Islam that any question of a clash is obviated. Many verses relating to this subject have already been quoted in the section dealing with religious peace.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency among many secular states to sometimes extend the domain of secularization beyond its natural borders. The same is true of theocratic states or states unduly influenced by a religious hierarchy.
Though one may not sympathize with them, one can understand to a degree the lopsided views of states governed by religious fanatics. But when one observes such an immature attitude in the so-called advanced and broad-minded people of secular countries, it is hard to believe. This is not the only thing difficult to understand in the political behaviour of man.
As long as politics remains rigidly wedded to national interest and contributes to its philosophy, there can be no such thing as absolute morality. As long as political attitudes are governed by national prejudices and truth, honesty, justice and fair play are discarded whenever they clash with the perceived national interest, and as long as this remains the definition of loyalty to one’s state, the political behaviour of man will remain dubious, controversial and ever paradoxical.
The Holy Quran mentions the responsibilities of government and people. Some of these responsibilities have been mentioned in the earlier sections of this lecture — the provision of food, clothing, shelter and the basic needs of its citizens; the principles of international aid; answerability to both the government and the people; their interplay; absolute justice; and sensibility to the problems of the people so that they do not have to raise their voice in demand of their rights.
In a true Islamic system of government, it is the responsibility of the government to be watchful so that people do not have to resort to strikes, industrial strife, demonstration, sabotage or cause of complaint, to get their rights. Let us turn briefly to some other responsibilities.
The Holy Quran states:
“If thou apprehend treachery from the people who have made a pact with thee, terminate the pact and their covenant with equity in a manner that should occasion no prejudice. Surely, Allah loves not the treacherous.” (Ch.8:59)
Those who govern may not govern in a manner so as to promote disorder, chaos, suffering and pain but should work diligently and effectively so as to establish peace in every sphere of society.
Note: This excerpt is taken from the book “Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues” written by Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad. The original book can be free download here:
https://www.alislam.org/book/islam-response-contemporary-issues/
