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

Mufti Hilali comments about dress code and assault

The Australian has reported on October 26th that Sh Hilali has made comments during a Friday sermon in the month of Ramadan that indicated that he “blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals.”

I can’t confirm or deny the accuracy of the translated version of his speech. However, I would like to make the following comments:

1- Islam encourages and prescribes modesty in dress (including Hijab). At the same time, Islam views rape as the most heinous of crimes and prescribes a severe punishment for rapists.

2-I have no doubt in my mind that Sh Taj never meant to rationalize the act of rape nor to suggest that rapists should not be exposed to the full force of the law. However, he should have been careful about how he presented his view so not to risk the slightest chance of being misunderstood by youth that he is rationalizing rape. He made a grave mistake by making such irresponsible comments.

3- I think that some of the words of the Sheik have been intentionally mistranslated like the use of the word "meat" instead of "flesh" to make the comment sound even more degrading than it already is. "Exposed flesh" is a word used commonly by Australians.

4- This view (suggestive dress encourages assault) is still used in courts of law by defence lawyers of raping offenders. It is also a view held by some church groups.

5- If you asked me: Does Hijab / conservative dress reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted? I would say: Probably yes, although it does not prevent it. Rapists are sick people anyway and may not only be sexually motivated for example elderly women are also raped in Australia. However, I would advocate (as Islam does) maximising of personal safety.

6- I am surprised that the comments were published more than 2 weeks after being made and their release was timed with the Werribee incident in Victoria. It is suspicious because the author of the article is Richard Kerbaj, the same guy who claimed that Dr Amir Ali said that the prophet had "character flaws" last week (see previous posting).

UPDATE: ICV and other Islamic organizations have asked for Sh Hilali's immediate resignation. We will see what happens.

References:
The Australian article.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/muslims-pan-muftis-speech/2006/10/26/1161749253946.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1773857.htm

Lecturers asked to spy on Muslim Students

The Guardian has reported on October 16th that the British Department of Education has produced an 18 page proposal asking Lecturers and University Staff across Britain to spy on “Asian Looking” and Muslim students. The document, reportedly, talks about students of "Asian appearance" being suspected extremists. The document, reportedly, urges monitoring of the activities of Islamic societies on campuses including monitoring guest speakers. It claims that Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years and discusses monitoring their leaflets and events.

Offcourse, the Australian media has picked up on this within less than 48 hours and the debate is now open in Australia on this same topic.

ABC News Online reported on an interview with Professor Gerard Sutton, who is the president of the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee (AVCC). The article quotes Professor Gerard saying "I think if the Government asked us to monitor particular groups of students then there would be outrage from academics about that,". He was also quoted saying: "We are about centres of learning, not about monitoring private activities of individual students." The same ABC article also suggests that Lecturers’ groups in the UK are worried about being lured into an "anti-Islamic McCarthyism".

While the stance of Professor Sutton is admirable and worthy of respect and support, I am not sure how long it will stand in the face of pressure from John Howard's and Pro-Zionist lobby groups' efforts of inciting hatred against Muslims.

There is history behind this. This issue has been brewing for a while within Pro-Zionists lobby groups (UK and Australia). There is evidence to indicate that Pro-Zionists lobby groups in the UK and Australia have a hand in this saga, possibly, in response to Muslim students being vocal in their criticism of Israel over the war on Lebanon and occupation of Palestine. Also in response to Muslim students collaborating with left wing groups over the same issue.

The Guardian describe the document saying “…Islamic societies at universities have become increasingly political in recent years”. I always thought that making Muslim students politically active is one good way of ensuring the integration of Muslims students, a good way of fighting terrorism (as students find a legitimate way of self expression) and an integral part of democracy and human rights. But then….I may be naïve. Does political activism for Muslims now constitute extremism??

For John Howard, this claim of “extremism on campuses” will came as favourable material to defend the “war on terror” and the War on Iraq.

Such a proposal to ask Academic staff to spy on Muslim students will come as a severe attack in the civil liberties of all citizens and the freedom of Muslim students who are already threatened enough as it is. Such a proposal will further alienate Muslim youth rather than help to build bridges.

My view is that there is no evidence of extremism in Australian University campuses and people who advocate for university staff to spy on people with “Asian appearance” and Muslims MUST first provide evidence of extremism.

Dr Amir Ali's statement about Prophet Mohammad

 
On October 4th, 2006, The Australian published an article titled "Prophet not perfect, says Islamic scholar". In my view, the article is a venomous attack on the Prophet (pbuh) and an intentional mis quotation by the journalist.

I have to say that the minute I read the article, I had a strong suspicion that Dr Amir Ali was misquoted for the following reasons:

1) The author described Dr Ali as an Islamic Scholar which he certainly is not, nor did he claim so.

2) This answer to this question appeared to me as an answer to a different question. "Asked if the prophet had character flaws, he said: "Of course - you must look at him as a human being also.""

3) The journalist "Richard Kerbaj" is known for his anti-Islamic view.

Later, Dr Ali has issued a statement dated 6th October titled "MISREPRESENTED BY JOURNALISTS", where he argued that his statement was taken out of context.

While I fully understand what Dr Ali has experienced, I think that a person in his position should be more savvy as how to handle hostile journalists like Richard Kerbaj. He should have recorded his interview. I think he is negligent (at least).

The prophet has made very few minor mistakes in his life (without which he would have been more an angel than a human). These few tiny mistakes where corrected by the Quran to set the standard. An example of that was when he did not give sufficient attention to answer the enquiry of a blind man.

Oh my beloved prophet Mohammad...may the peace and blessings of Allah be on you.