Democracy and Islam, are they at odds?

Introduction

The ideal way to run a state is a question that has been debated by many Muslims, including Australian Muslims, since the start of the Arab Spring. Some Australian Muslims have expressed that Democracy is a system that is at odds with Islam. They argue that many democratic systems around the world are unjust capitalists systems where wealth and decision making is restricted to the elite. They also argue that in these systems the right of people to self determination is nothing but a fictitious concept to keep the masses content. But going one step further, they argue that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible because of the difference in the concept of sovereignty. In Islam, sovereignty belongs to God alone. According to them, democracy breaches this concept as it gives sovereignty to people over God. However, many Australian Muslims don’t subscribe to this discourse.I argue that Islam and Democracy are not at odds and that the apparent conflict is really about the definition of democracy and the use of the term. If we use the term “Democracy” in its pure and literal sense, then I don’t see any conflict with Islamic principles. It is possible to build an Islamic system of government which is based on the structure of democracy and is much better than some of the current Western democracies.

Democracy

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives[1]. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law[1]. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. Democracy is not one. There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others. Some are closer to the intent of Shariahh than others. Some of these are: Constitutional democracy, Representative democracy, Parliamentary democracy, Presidential democracy, Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Inclusive democracy and Consensus democracy. There are some common features of all the different types. One of the features common to all types of democracies is the concept of “Separation of powers”. If any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy. They all offer a structure of governance with fairly well defined roles of responsibilities for each authority in the system.

Islam

On the other hand, our Shariahh (Law) prescribes a set of values and principles for its followers when running a state to reach an ideal Islamic system. Many of these requirements are obligatory but the details of application are left to Humans. Most of these values are actually general values for living rather than limited to governance. Some of these are:

- Shura (consultation)
- Justice. Pursuing justice through social cooperation and mutual assistance
- Establishing mercy and compassion and protection of the weak
- Human rights including equality and Freedoms
- Prohibition of monopolies
- Rulers are servants of their people

Shariah has prescribed Shura, however, it did not specify how it should be applied. Therefore, Islam has left it up to humans to choose how to apply this concept in the manner that best suits our needs at a specific time, place and context. This is indeed a feature that makes the Quran applicable to all times. Most Jurists suggest that consensus is required in the process of Shura and that the consensus opinion is prescriptive on the executive authority. There is no prescription as to whether consensus should be obtained through majority vote or through other methods. We also see that in Islamic history, different rulers have applied the concept of Shura in different ways. What is definite is that the concept most certainly did not refer merely to a ruler’s solicitation of opinions from notables in society; it signified, more broadly, resistance to autocracy or oppression.Islamic jurists have articulated rules on the application of these principles and what are their priorities. The concept of priorities in Islamic jurisprudence is indeed an amazing science. For example, that one’s freedom stops where someone else’s start. That community needs are a higher priority than individual needs, if they conflict, and individuals are fairly compensated.Offcourse, Shariah also has more specific legislative requirements associated with finance management, economic management, family law, criminal law etc. But these are not many in a relative sense. Often, details of application for most of the above are left to people.

Are they at odds?

It is fair to say that many Islamic values need to be detailed in state constitutions and legislations to a level of detail that can be applied with equality in modern societies. When doing so, the general rule is that no specific legislation can contradict a clearly understood and confirmed Islamic text. However, the details of how the Shura (consultation) process occurs? who has the final say? Who is consulted? What issue require consultation and to what level? Etc etc are all details that need to be articulated. This articulation process into law by no means diminishes the concept of sovereignty of Allah swt.Islam did not prescribe separation of executive authority, Judicial and legislative authorities in the way it is done in Western Democracies today. But doing so is one way of serving the intent of Shariahh in terms of justice and prohibition of monopolies. Separation of powers certainly does not contradict Islamic principles. Infact, separation of legislation and executive authority is inherent to Islam in that legislations come from a source other than the executive authority – the Quran and the tradition of the prophet. In Islamic Jurisprudence, there are areas where there are differences of opinion. This is a great feature of our religion that makes things easier to individuals. When it comes to a state, the legislation authority may sometimes have to ‘select’ one of these opinions and add governance details to it in the form of legislation to ensure equity in issues that affect the running of the state without interfering into the private lives of individuals. It is indeed possible to maintain the requirement of sovereignty to Allah swt in a democratic system through legislation. The constitution can reaffirm this concept and outline that the Quran and Sunnah are the main source of legislation. In doing so, legislation that directly contradicts clear Islamic text becomes non-constitutional.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to create an “Islamic democracy”. The key differentiators of an “Islamic Democracy” is that its legislative authority is guided and restricted by Shariah (through the constitution) while its executive authority is guided by the moral code of Islam. Indeed a constitutional democracy can be a good starting point for an Islamic democracy. Therefore, it is quite plausible for a state to apply the democratic mechanisms of government and claim it to be an Islamic system. Islam is not at odds with the ideals of democracy. Such a system, in my view, would be a much superior democracy to what we see today.

1-Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006

Positives from the freedom convoy disaster

Turkey's friendship is as strong as its animosity

Israel's attack on the freedom convoy was an act of terrorism. Not only does it need to be strongly condemned, but Israel needs to be punished for its act of piracy, murder and kidnapping of civilians in international waters. If this act goes unpunished, then the world's community is sending a message that: terrorism, piracy and murder are not considered so, if the perpetrator is powerful enough. As such, lawbreakers only need to seek to become mighty enough to avoid scrutiny for their illegal actions. I don't want my children to live in such a world.

Years of negotiations and peace talks by high powered officials from US, Egypt, Saudi and many other countries have not led to a an end to the siege. But 600 civilians have achieved in days what high powered officials could not do in years – and possibly could or would never have done.

This event has proved again to the world that civilians, despite the grave cost and limited resources, have and can break the siege. Civilians and common people can cause change, even if few in numbers. This action will not and must not deter more human rights activists from seeking to break the illegal siege on Gaza.

Despite the human cost of this venture, there are many positive outcomes. It could be argued that these activists have achieved their objectives more effectively. They have made Israel score a disastrous own goal. I see the following as positive outcomes:

1- It has been demonstrated to the world without reasonable doubt, what kind of evil entity is Israel. Overnight, the arguments of Hamas have been substantiated and the arguments of Israel have been rebutted by their own doing.

2- The pressures on Israel have mounted to not only allow the ships into Gaza but to lift, completely, the illegal siege on Gaza. A siege, I might add, that the world have become used to as a fact of life and maybe accepted as a right of Israel.

3- Turkey, with its might, has been brought into the central stage of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict. A country, which a few months ago could have been considered a "friend" of Israel, is now taking a stern stance against Israel’s siege on Gaza. Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted "Turkey's friendship is as strong as its animosity". This is a massive win for the Palestinian struggle.

4- Turkey has now assumed moral leadership of the Middle East, and possibly soon, much more than just moral leadership. This is expected given the strong leadership and clear positions taken by the Turkish government. It is also expected due to the shear lack of any hint of leadership from all Arab regimes who have simply become spokespersons from Israeli and the US interests. Watching Aljazeera, you could see people in all Arab countries carrying the Turkish flag as they seek to fill this massive leadership void.

5- This event has placed weak and unstable regimes of the Arab world, led by Egypt, under significant pressures and further exposed their lack of action and their inability to take any real decision or clear position. The never ending pursuit of peace talks as the only strategic choice has now been clearly exposed against Israeli’s only strategic choice to fulfil self-interest.

6- It could now be expected that there will be renewed calls to talk directly to Hamas in order to reach a resolution. This can only be a positive step forward, to recognize the only democratically elected Government in the Arab world.

This event may spark a series of history changing events, possibly beyond what the peace activists could have ever hoped for.

Leadership and Islamic Organisations

..one of the most important aspects of leadership is the leader's ability to produce other leaders.

One of the secrets I discovered about leadership is this: Do not judge your leadership skills by how the organisation performs when you are leading it, but rather how the organisation performs when you leave it.

This statement is so important because it highlights one of the most important aspects of leadership and that is the leader's ability to produce other leaders. In the corporate world, it is normally referred to as 'succession planning'. In the not for profit world, it is about the leaders ability to extract the best out of people around him or her. It is the leaders ability to empower others. It is the leaders ability to loose control and feel comfortable doing so. It is the leaders ability to share a vision so well that others own and champion it and, in the process, become leaders themselves. It is the leaders ability to focus, not on him or herself, but on the vision and the people around him / her.

A leader should be asking: How much did I facilitate others to excel, lead and be empowered. How much higher and better did I help others to be. How many people did I share the vision with?

This point is so forgotten in many Islamic organisations in Australia and this is so sad. Many people in authority are self focused on their image and their own private achievements. Forgetting that the best thing they could do is to empower others to lead. One sad example of this is ISOMER.

Gaza carnage video censored by youtube

Gaza - Israel kills children of Gaza

Howard picked on the wrong guy

In February 2007, Mr Howard was reported to have said that al-Qaeda should be "praying as many times as possible" for an Obama victory in the 2008 elections.

Howard, racially thinking Obama's chances are Nil, thought he could
slam Obama and win over Bush's heart (now voted the most unpopular president in the history of US).

For Bush, CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said "No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark".

Mr Howard banked on the wrong horse. Mr Obama has won the US elections in a land slide. Had Mr Howard remained as prime minister of Australia, we would have been in an embarrassing situation now, to say the least, with the new US administration.

Now, all leaders who called and pushed for the invasion of Iraq have all lost elections and history will remember them with bitterness. Bush will always be associated with war, bloodshed and the darkest times in American history.

US soldiers rape their own comrades

Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq." - CNN Thurs 31st July,08

Reports have been coming out in the last month about the epidemic of sexual assault and rape crimes by US male soldiers. These cases are not crimes against Iraqi women...they are committed against female US soldiers - comrades.

A congresswoman said "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq". The report says that 41 percent of the female veterans seen in the Veterans hospital say they were victims of sexual assault while serving in the military. Last year, Col. Janis Karpinski caused a stir by publicly reporting that in 2003, three female soldiers had died of dehydration in Iraq, which can get up to 126 degrees in the summer, because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being raped by male soldiers if they walked to the latrines after dark.

The Department of Defense refused to allow the senior civilian in charge of its Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) to testify in the August 2008 hearing on sexual assault in the military.

The difficult question that I would like to ask is: If this is what US soldiers do to their own female comrades, what do they do to the 'enemy' - the Iraqi women?? What are the statistics? Why is it not reported? What are the soldiers of 'freedom' bringing to the women of Iraq? I hate to think!!!