Tag: khilafah

Islam and Rule of the People -II

Islam is very democratic in its application of things. After all, in its truest essence, democracy is not only elections, but a variety of things. These include pluralism, free speech, freedom of association, basic human rights and so on. Islam encourages all of these within its own framework.

As far as the objection that in a democracy, people can make laws as they wish, one has to understand that Islam itself gives a framework within which there is room for human creativity and reason to come into play. In a constitutional democracy, democracy is restricted by the constitution. Legislation can only be carried out within that framework. If a constitution is based on Islamic principles, than there is abundant room for legislation. In fact, from the standpoint of being Muslims in a democracy, one cannot, by his allegiance, legislate or make decisions against the teachings of Islam. If he does, it is no less different than breaking the constitution. For in theory, one can always do that as well. Acting against faith, or law, is a crime. So to the response of ‘what happens when a Muslim parliament legislates in favor of alcohol’; one can simply reply that  when such a thing will happen, the members of parliament and their supporters, will be committing a crime against their faith, or even against the constitution, if it is based on Islamic principles. The blame will hence go on the whole Muslim community. And Allah has referred constantly in His revealed book in regard to what happens when a whole nation cooperates in wrong deeds.

Islam is not totalitarian, and does not have precise details and orders for every minute thing. In fact Islam sets broad guidelines and principles, while also setting some limitations. This aspect is sometimes missed, and mostly those who are overly defensive of their religion contest that Islam gives us a game-plan and to-do list for every single situation we face. While one may think that such were true, he must always realize that if it were than it would not be possible for Islam to have a universal character, and hence apply to changing times and circumstances. If the object in question changes, then how can the way we deal in it not? This doesn’t mean that Islam changes, but in fact the principles and guidelines it suggest remain universal and permanent.

I actually had a debate with an emotional friend of mine in which he argued that if something is not already endorsed in the Quran and Sunnah, and absent in Islam, then it cannot be permitted to be carried out. However, when I asked him whether he ever looked at religious sources before deciding to scratch his head, his response was a confused resort.  Another example I had to give him was regarding clothing; while the Prophet (SAW) himself is reported to have worn the dresses of both Persians and Byzantines, Islam still has a dress-code. That dress-code is not particular in the sense that it tells you what to wear, but rather it tells you how to wear what you wear. This means that you can wear clothes ascribed to any culture – Arab, Persian, Western, African and so on – or form as long as the Islamic criterion is met.

Two reputed Islamic scholars write in a collective article

“The Islamic approach is that faith, values and principles and some key institutions such as the Quran and Sunnah provide the permanent framework. Within that framework, there is a lot of flexibility for change and experimentation. Islamic commands have been divided into five categories. On the one end are fardh, the obligatory requirements, which are specific and occupy a relatively small proportion of commands. On the other end are haram (forbidden) elements: this is the bottom-line that may not be crossed. Between these two ends are desirable elements of conduct (mustahab) and undesirable elements (makruh). The rest of human activity falls in the vast middle area of mubah (permissible) conduct, which may be regarded the domain of human freedom.” *

To be continued…

Click here for Part I and Part III

 

References

“Religion, State and Society”  by Prof Khurshid Ahmad & Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi, in “Policy Perspectives, Volume.5, No. 1”

 

Islam and Rule of the People – I

Is there anything wrong with the idea that people should have the right to rule? Many people argue that there actually is something unacceptable and Islam does not permit such a thing; a blasphemy, maybe.  To say that the people have the right to rule, they argue, is to give away a right reserved for God alone as sovereignty belongs to God, no one should be allowed to be partner in it.

Seemingly, this does tend to make sense. More so, in times as ours when people have come to detest democracy in general after witnessing decades of jiyala politics in Pakistan, and hence express their frustration in various forms, including religious ones.

I, for one, cannot comprehend the absolutist condemnation of democracy. One may debate that politics in our country has degenerated to a very humiliating level (to which one can point out many other reasons besides ‘democracy’). But an outright condemnation to the point that one uses religion to oppose it brings many complications as the image of a religion – that is democratic to the core – is put at stake.

I believe that the argument above is based on certain confusions and mishandlings of conceptions in the Islamic tradition.

First of all, it is beyond doubt that God alone is sovereign. This concept emanates from the creed of Tawhid-the oneness of Allah.  This is undeniable and incontestable on all levels. But when we are talking about this world we have to be more explicit and clear in what we imply.

While we may recognize God’s supremacy in this world and the next, we never mean that humans don’t have worldly authority. To say that they don’t would be to deny both free will, everything we see all day and common sense, for the sake of it. It is people who already rule themselves; whether in the form of a singular individual, an institution, class, race, parliament and so on. If human rule is to be denied in its worldly sense then the only plausible form of government would be an anarchic one. Sadly maybe, neither God nor His angels come down on earth and take control of governments. It’s a human decision to make; with or without taking God into consideration.

The question that arises then is, in what form does an Islamic state manifest itself?

Islam has provided a socio-political framework and universal principles that guide us in this regard as well. While Islam recognizes the Divine authority, it fails to recognize a divinely class, and hence closes the doors of theocracy. In this sense, the Islamic ideal is not a religious state. Nobody represents God’s will on earth. Instead, God provides the legitimacy to people to rule on his behalf under the framework of His divine guidelines. He did this by making universal man (all humankind) His vicegerent on earth.

The Islamic principle of governance establishes itself on the basis of shoora (consultation) and Khalifat. Derived from these two principles, we can safely say that while western democracy champions popular sovereignty, Islam recognizes popular vicegerency. While there seems to be common ground on the functional level, conceptually both are worlds apart. It’s somewhat like praying in front of a rock; if your idea of the rock is that it is an idol worth worship then the same action – that would otherwise be completely appropriate – becomes a sin.

The Islamic ideal requires that the Muslim community be taken into confidence not only in the selection of the rulers but also in the decisions of the rulers. The welcoming attitude towards criticism by the Khulfa e Rashideen (the Pious Caliphs) is well established. The attitude of Hazrat Ali (RA) and Hazrat Usman (RA), for example, towards the rebels is without any precedent in history. At a moment, Hazrat Ali (RA) even refused to take action against a rebel who openly declared that he will murder the respected caliph. In both these cases, the caliphs in question had to bear many troubles to uphold such cherished ideals.

On an occasion, Hazrat Umer (RA) spoke unambiguously about the selection of the Muslim ruler. While explaining to people that the selection of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was not to be taken as a precedent because it was only adopted out of circumstantial necessity, he went on to say that “If someone gives pledge (bay’et) of allegiance to another (to become a Caliph) without consulting the Muslim community, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed.” * Obviously, the strict connotation at the end refers to carrying out a crime against both the state and the community. The same treatment would today be reserved for someone who breaks the constitution to usurp power.

Click here for Part II and Part III

Reference“ *Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817”