The on-going debate amongst Islamists in discussion for a on the Internet provide a contrasting rainbow of ideas and interpretations. There are those who assert that "democracy contradicts Islam completely in the fundamentals and in the details,". Once such discussant state the following points to prove his view. He says:
"(i) Democracy gives the sovereignty to the people and entrusts them with the whole matter. Hence, people are the supreme reference in everything. According to the rules of democracy, people are the source of power. Thus people are the source of the legislative power, the judicial power and the executive power. It is people who legislate the laws, appoint the judges and establish the rulers. This is contrary to Islam which makes the sovereignty to Shari'ah and not to people. In this way the whole matter is to the Shari'ah and it is the supreme reference in everything. As for the powers, Islam has made the legislative power for Allah (swt), not to people. It is Allah (swt) alone Who legislates the rules in everything, be it in regard to worship, transactions, the punishments or otherwise. It is forbidden for anyone to legislate, even if it was a single rule. People in Islam have the authority - namely the rule, so it is the people who elect the ruler and appoint him. Thus people are the source of the executive power only -they select the man who assumes the authority and the rule. As for the judicial power, this is assumed by the Khaleefah or whoever deputizes for him in this. It is the Khaleefah who appoints the judges or appoints someone who appoints the judges. No person from among the people, individuals or groups alike have the authority to appoint a judge. This is rather restricted to the Khaleefah and his deputy. (ii) The leadership in the democratic system is collective and not for the individual. The power is also collective and not for the individual. The authority, or the rule is assumed by the council of ministers meaning the cabinet. The head of state, be it a king or a president, is a nominal figure who reigns but does not rule. The body that rules and assumes the power is the cabinet. This is contrary to Islam, where the leadership is for the individual and not a collective and where the power is also for the individual and not a collective. It has been reported on the authority......." Respons by Dr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi: The remarks mentioned above contain a rather large number of contradictions and misunderstandings that need to be clarified: 1. He starts by saying that the people cannot have sovereignty, but in the next paragraph, he tells that one person, the Khalifa, must have full, unquestioned authority. In this he indirectly clarifies the question he tries to bury into confusion. For the issue here is not God's sovereignty versus that of the people. No Muslim questions the sovereignty of God or the rule of Shari'ah. However, most Mulsims do (and did) have misgivings about any claim by one person that he is sovereign. The sovereigny of one man contradicts the sovereignty of God, for all men are equal in front of God. 2. The leadership in Islam is indeed collective. The ahadith quoted by the brother all prove this, in fact. The Hadith about appointing an amir is directed to the group. It is the group which appoints the amir, which means that he is accountable to them, and must consult with them. Consultation in Islam is obligatory, because it is an order from God, given explicitly in the Quran. What God orders is not optional, but obligatory. Blind obedience to one-man rule is contrary to Islam. If you have read enough hadith you would have come across the story of the amir sent by the Prophet to lead an expedition. One day he lit up a fire and told his men to jump into it. They naturally refused, even though the man reminded that the Prophet had ordered them to obey him. When they went back and related teh incident to the Prophet, he said: "If they had entered it they would never have come out of it." Meaning they will go straight to hell. Any man who claims to be a Khalifa and orders things that are contrary to reason or Shariah may be disobeyed. In fact he must be. But if this is not to lead to chaos as happened in past Muslim history, it is advisable to have insitutions which arbitrate between the ruler and the people, such as parliaments, an independent judiciary, etc. We need not copy these instituions, but we must recognise the useful function they serve. 3. The claim that the Prophet regularly defies majority opinion is incorrect. Whenever the Prophet issued an order or gave an opinion, the Sahabah sometimes asked::: is this a divine order or just an opinion? This happened in Badr and during Ghazawat al-Khandaq. When he said it was not divine injunction, the Sahabah immediately gave a different opinion, which the Prophet then accepted. Since any person after the Prophet cannot claim the privilege of having received a direct order from God, all their views can and may be contested. It is also wise for the ruler to do so, since if any ruler persists in defying majority opinion, the people are likely to revolt and kill him, as happened to many rulers. The advantage of democracy (or any similar system based on consensus and clear rules about how to accommodate various interests and opinions) is that it makes it unnecessary for citizens to resort to force. 4. All rule in this world is rule by human beings. There are no angels or Prophets to take this responsibility. (By the way, the hadith about responsibility which the brother quotes to support his view that the Khalifa is sole guardian over the people starts like this: "All of you are guardians, and each is responsible for his ward." So is proves quite the reverse, that all Mulsims are collectively responsible for running their affairs." It is thus more likely that the majority of Mulsims could be less prone to error than one man. After all, the community cannot all agree on error, as the hadith say. So it is unlikely that one man would be right and all the Mulsims wrong. 5. It is not correct to say that authority in Islam was centralised without separation of powers. Sahifat al-Madinah, the first constituion for Mulsims, explicitly divided responsilibity for governance among the tribes. Islam has always recognised tribal, family and clan authority. Tirbes which joined Islam were allowed to govern themselves. The Prophet only sent them people to teach them Shariah and sometimes judges. 6. The point about legislatin and the judiciary show a series of misunderstandings and contradictions. We are told that in Islam people do not legislate or appoint the judiciary. But in the same paragraph, we are told that the Khalifa does. Now if I am not mistaken, the Khalifa is usually a human being. So it is people after all who appoint the judiciary. The difference is that we prefer proper instituions to do this, rather than a single person. Legislation, if it means issuing of rules, happens all the time, and was done by Khulafa. The Shariah has laid broad principles, but did not cover every item. In fact, the Quran has discouraged the Mulsims from asking too many questions and requesting detailed rules for everything. This was due to God's mercy, who wanted us to use our minds and ijtihad. And since every item of ijtihad is actually new legislation, men do legislate in Islam all the time. Again the question is: do we allow this legislation to the whim of one man, or even a small clique of men, or do we organise ourselves so that each ijtihad is vetted by the Muslim public? I think the answer is direct and simple. 7. The proposed distinction between matters that "require contemplation and understanding" and that do not, is confused and useless. All matters require contemplation and understanding. And as I said earlier, all rulings of human beings (after teh Prophet) are matters of ijtihad. And since we are here arguing about these matters, and unless the brother and his supporters can produce to us evidence they are privy to some divine knowledge which is hidden from us, the very fact that we differ in interpretation means that we need some form of arbitration. According to him, these matters of difference have to be decided by the Khalifa. But since we do not a Khalifa anyway, and most Khalifa's up to now have been contested, often by venerable ulama, this does not solve our problem now or in a state governed by his principles. 8. The claim that democracy entails immunity for certain officials is a mistaken one, since it is not essential for democracy to function to have immunity for officials. And in any case, there is no absolute immunity for any official in democracies, since this would contradict the principle for accountability. 9. The point about freedoms is also misguided, since democratic systems are not based on freedom to transgress the law, quite the reverse. The essence of democracy is the rule of law. The rule of law also entails independence of the judiciary. It is also the people who decide on what law to observe. Naturally, Muslim people would want to observe Islamic laws. 10. The main question therefore is: how best can Mulsims live as Muslims? There are those who believe that Mulsims live according to their values because they want to. That God would not accept from them anything less. Therefore, freedom for Mulsims is both precondition for divine acceptance and the guarantee for observance of Islamic way of life. There are, by contrast, those who think that Muslims are incapable of living according God's will unless a dictatorial rule imposes on them this conduct. That the only guarantee for Islam to thrive is to deprive Muslims from all freedoms and deprive them from participation in running their affairs. Instead, one single individual should lord it over them, take all decisions on their behalf and force them to do what is right. In short, the ideal Islamic state, according to this understanding, is made of one virtous ruler and a whole load of hypocrites who only obey Shari'ah because they are slaves. This is pathetic and contrary to reason, to Islam and to reality. In fact it is the ordinary Muslims who today are braving tyranny and suberversion by corrupt rulers to keep Islam alive. And this has always been the case. Were they dependent on their rulers for this, Islam would have been lost a long time ago. saiyed shahbazi www.shahbazcenter.org
