Islam and Democracy
Question: Your Excellency, I was stunned when I heard some of the Islamic activists claim that democracy contradicts Islam. One of them reported that some of the Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the term "democracy" is a manifestation of disbelief for it means that the people rule themselves by themselves; whereas the people in Islam are not the rulers but are actually the ruled. For Allah, the Exalted, says,
"Surely judgment is only for God"
This is reminiscent of what the Khawarijites said and of Ali's (May God honor him) answer to them, "It is truth confounded with falsehood."
Liberalists believe that Islamists are the enemies of democracy and the advocates of dictatorship and despotism. Is this a fact? Is democracy an expression of disbelief or evil-doing as they claim? Or is this a false claim forced upon Islam?!
To refute it, "the Moderate scholars" who are either pro-overestimation, nor underestimation, must issue a statement so as to put things in proportion; for Islam must not bear the burdens of wrong interpretations even though they are issued by some scholars who are originally human beings who can be right or wrong.
I pray to Allah to bestow His Aid ands Guidance on you so that you might be able to throw light on the truth guided by Islamic Jurisprudence. I also pray Him to help you to refute suspicion and prove your credibility. May Allah reward you profusely.
M.S.
A loving Muslim of Algeria
Answer: O brother, I am so sad that things have become so muddled-up and that the hard-liners in general and the religious spokesmen in particular have confound truth with falsehood to the extent that it become of little consequence to accuse people of disbelief and evil-doing as if the Islamic Jurisprudence does not judge that it is a destructive major crime and a serious accusation that will revert to the accuser if the accused is innocent as the authentic hadith reported. This question asked by this generous Muslim brother is familiar to me for many Muslim brothers in Algeria repeated this question bluntly: Is democracy an equivalent for disbelief?!
A few weeks ago, I was on a visit to Lebanon-Sayda in particular and as was giving a lecture, I was asked several questions concerning "The Welfare Islamic Party" participation in the existing democratic secular government in Turkey. I maintained: My judgment concerning this issue must be based on the Fiqh of balance. In other words, if the interest of Islam and Muslims necessitates this participation, it is allowed. He reiterated how can the participation in a democratic government be allowed even though democracy is an equivalent for disbelief? He then handed me a booklet concerning this issue!
-------------------------------------------------------------
To pass a judgment over something , one should have clear conception of it
Strange enough, some people pass the judgment over democracy as being an expression of flagrant evil doing and disbelief, notwithstanding the fact that they skimmed through it and did not try to find their way to the core and get acquired with its real meaning and targets.
Our scholars have an established rule that says: to pass a judgment over something, one should have clear conception of it. Whoever judges in a matter he is ignorant of, must fall into error even if, by coincidence, he happened to be right. For, he is not qualified or equipped to issue a just judgment. The hadith stated that any judge whose judgment is based on ignorance will go to the Hell-Fire, just like the judge who knows the truth, yet he judges contrary to it.
Can democracy be an evil-doing or an expression of disbelief like some of the rash superficialists claim even though the peoples of the world uphold and advocate it, and a large number of people in the East and the West have striven so hard for it? Wasn't this democracy the long-awaited hope and craved dream for some peoples who reached it after an exhausting struggle with tyrants, in which blood was shed, and thousands, in fact millions, of victims fell dead, as the case in Eastern Europe and other countries? Isn't this democracy the most accepted way for many Islamists to put a curb on the transgressions and hostilities of individualistic rule and o clip the nails of political supposition which has plagued our Muslim and Arab people for so long?!
The content of democracy
Leaving academic definitions and terminology aside the real meaning of democracy is that people must choose their ruler by themselves. No ruler or regime is to be forced upon them without their full consent. They must have the right to bring him to account if he commits a mistake. Moreover, they must have the right to depose him and choose a new ruler if he goes astray. People must not be led against their will to advocate economical, social, cultural, or political trends and programs that they are not satisfied with. And, if some of them and opposed the regime, they must not be exposed to expulsion, exemplary punishment or the worst of torture and massacre.
This is the typical meaning of democracy which is embodied in elections, public poll, preference of the majority rule, multi-party system, the right of minority opposition, freedom of e press and the independence of jurisdiction…etc.
Now, is the democracy that we have just explained contradictory to Islam? If so, which sides of it are so and what are evidences of the Glorious Book and Sunnah that gives credibility to such a claim?
The content of democracy is congruous with Islam
In fact, the connotation of democracy are in harmony with th essence of Islam for it warns one against leading a congregation while he is disliked by the followers. In this respect, Ibn 'Abbas relates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"Three people's prayers will not rise above their head even an inch; one who leads Muslims in a congregational prayer while they do not like him…etc."
If this was the case with the Imam in prayers, then what about thepeople who are in authority in life and politics? The authentic hadith narrates,
"The best of your Imams-rulers- are those whom you love and they love you back and you supplicate Allah for their own good-and they for you. The worst of your Imams are those whom you loathe and they loathe you and you curse them and they curse you!"
The severe Qur'anic attack of the half-God rulers
The Qur'an launched ruthless attack on half-god rulerson earth who enslave Allah's slaves such as namrud whom the Qur'an narrates his dispute with Abraham saying,
"Have you not seen the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord only because God had granted him kingship? When Abraham said: "Igive life and and cause death". Abraham saiid: "indeed God cuses the sun to rise from the east, so can you make it rise from the west? So was the one who disbelieve dumbfounded and God not guide the evil-doers" (2:258)
Obviously, this claimed that he could give life and cause death just as Abraham's God-the Lord of the worlds- gives life and ordains death. Consequently, people must worship him just as they worship Abraham's God! His presumptuous claim that he could give life and cause death made him give orders to his retinue to bring two men from the street. He then sentenced them both to death for nothing and immediately executed one of them and said, "You see, I can cause death" Then, he forgave the other and exclaimed, "Well, I can give life! Am I not the one who gives life and ordains death?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Pharaoh who called upon his people saying,
"I am your supreme lord!"
And boasted saying,
"O chiefs, I do not know of any god for you other than myself."
The Qur'an exposed a profane alliance of those wicked groups:
First, the tyrant half-god ruler who oppresses, suppresses and tortures Allah's slaves. Thus, Pharaoh is the best representative of this group.
Second, the opportunist politician who abuses his intelligence and expertise in the service of the tyrant in consolidating his influence and power and in taming his people so as to turn into slaves. This is typical of Haman.
Third, the capitalists or feudalists who support the tyrant by giving him some money, then they expect to make up for it by sucking the blood and the life out of the people. This group is best represented by Qarun.
The Qur'an states this triple alliance of sin and aggression and their persistent rejection of Moses' message until Allah seized them with such seizing of the Mighty, Omnipotent,
"And We sent Moses with Our Signs and a clear authority To Pharaoh, Haman and Qarun, but they said, "A lying magician!"" (40:23:24)
And,
"And Qarun, Pharaoh and Haman, when Moses came to them with clear signs, but they were arrogant on the earth but they could not avoid Our Punishment."
It is surprising that Qarun was from Moses' people, and not from Pharaoh's. But, he behaved arrogantly towards them and jointed forces with their enemy, Pharaoh, who welcomed this treacherously. Thus, financial interests united them, notwithstanding their different origin and background.
The Qur'an unites tyranny and corruption
One of the wonders of the Qur'an, is its ability to unite tyranny and the prevalence of corruption which leads nations to inevitable destruction and ruin. For Allah, the Exalted, says,
"Have you not seen low your Lord did with the 'Ad, Iram of the pillars; the like of which was never created in the land? And the Thamud, who hewed out rocks in the valley? And with Pharaoh of the stakes? Who were insolent in the land and infested the land with much corruption." (89:6-12)
Sometimes, the Qur'an expresses the idea of tyranny by using one word "elation" which means arrogance and oppression of people through humiliation and tyranny. In this respect, Allah, the Exalted, said about Pharaoh,
"Surely he was a tyrant of the wanton ones." (44:31)
And,
"Surely Pharaoh elated himself in the land and divided its people into sections, one of which he oppressed killing their sons and sparing their women, indeed he was a corrupter" (28:4)
Thus "elation" and "corruption" are inseparable.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Qur'an's dispraise of the over-pliable people towards tyrants
The Qur'an does not only launch attack on half-god tyrants but also on their pliant, easily-led and passive peoples who yielded to their influence and, as it were, put the chains round their own necks. Both share the responsibility for tyranny and corruption. For Allah, the Exalted, says about Noah's people,
"Noah said, "Nay Lord, they have disobeyed me, and followed him whose wealth and children increase only in loss."" (71:21)
Allah, the Exalted, says concerning Hud's people,
"And such were the people of 'Ad, they denied the Revelations of their Lord and disobeyed His Messengers, and followed the bidding of every insolent tyrant." (11:59)
A for pharaoh's people, He says,
"But they followed Pharaoh's bidding, and Pharaoh's bidding was not right minded. Pharaoh will go before his people on the Day of Resurrection and the place to which he leads!" (11:97-98)
And,
"Thus did he take his people for fools, and they obeyed him, indeed they were a wicked people." (43:54)
The Qur'an blamed the people for being responsible, or sharing, the responsibility of this oppression and transgression. Their unworthy pliancy, passiveness and submission are the factors that paved the way for the emergence, rise, and elation of Pharaohs and tyrants. To illustrate, people express this idea in a very famous proverb that narrates that one day people asked the tyrannical Pharaoh, "What made you a tyrannical Pharaoh?" He said, "I did not find anyone brave or honest enough to stand in my way or to hold me to account for my tyranny and corruption!"
The soldiers and retinue of the tyrant share the responsibility with him
"The tools of the regime" are next to blame and share the responsibility after the tyrant. The Qur'an refers to them as "soldiers". In other words, they are the military forces which are the claws and nails of the political authorities, and the whips which terrorize the public if they rebel, or even think about rebellion. In this respect the Qur'an states:
"Surely Pharaoh, Haman and their soldiers were sinners." (28:8)
And,
"So we seized him and his soldiers, and we cast them into the sea, see how was the end of the evil doers!" (28:40)
The Sunnah's attack on oppressive rulers
The Prophet's Sunnah launched ruthless attack on oppressive and tyrant rulers who rule with a rod of iron and lead their people by the nose. When they speak, no one can oppose them, for they are like butterflies who race to touch the light of the fire and make their own death. Furthermore, it attacked their opportunist retinue and assistants and other forces of darkness who curry their favor and follow in their footsteps. In addition, I denounced the fear-stricken nation which fears to confront the oppressor and call him so.
Abu Musa reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
"There is a valley in Hell, in which there is a well called Habhab which Allah has pledged to make it the abode of every obstinate tyrant."
Mu'awiyah reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
"There will be Imams-rulers-after my time, who will say whatever they wish and no one will object or confront them. There will, thoughtlessly, throw themselves into Hell-fire like monkeys."
Jabir reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Ka'b ibn 'Ujrah.
"O Ka'b! May Allah bestow His Refuge and Protection on you against the ruling of the foolish ones!" He said, "Who are those foolish ones?!" He answered, "They are rulers who will come after my time and will reject my guidance and Sunnah. Whoever believes their lies and helps them with their oppression, is not of my people and he will not meet me at my Basin. And whoever rejects their lies and refuses to help them with their oppression, is of my people and he will meet me at my Basin."
Mu'awiyah reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
"A nation, in which the weak does not restore his right of the strong and powerful one without harm, is never sanctified (by Allah)."
'Abdullah ibn 'Amr reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
"As soon as my nation fears to confront the oppressor right in his face, they no longer deserve to be called alive."
Shura, advice, enjoining and forbidding
Shura is one of the bases of the Islamic life. Islam made it obligatory on the ruler or governor to consult his nation and on the nation to give advice to the ruler. It went so far as to raise advice to the level of religion, for the hadith reported that the advice must be given to the Imams of Muslims, namely their commanders and rulers. In addition, it made enjoining good and forbidding evil obligatory on every Muslim. Moreover, it made the best kinds of Jihad (Striving in Allah's Way) a truthful word said to an oppressive sultan. In other words, Allah gives priority to the resistance of internal tyranny and corruption over that of external invasion; for the former often leads to the latter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam's outlook of rulers
Islam considers a ruler as the deputy or servant of the nation which has every right to hold him to account for his deeds, and to withdraw his powers as soon as he abuses his influence and fail to fulfill his commitments. The ruler from the Islamic point of view, is not above suspicion, censor or punishment for he is a vulnerable human being who can be right or wrong, just ot unjust and the public has the right to correct him if he is wrong and to set right his crookedness. The Rightly Guided whom we are ordered to follow in their footsteps and cling tenaciously to their way of life and behavior, upheld and advocated this principle. Their way of life is seen as an extension to the Sunnah of the first tutor; Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The First Caliph Abu Bakr said in his very first public speech, "O people, you choose me to rule you and you must know that I am not the best man among you. So as long as you believe that I am right, you must help me. But as soon as you believe that I am wrong, you must correct and advise me… Obey me as long as you believe that I obey Allah in ruling and conducting you affairs. But as soon as you believe that I disobey Him, you must cease obeying me."
Also, the second Caliph, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "May Allah bestow His mercy on anyone who is kind enough to gift me with my points of weakness…O people, whoever of you sees me sways or go crooked, he must correct and set it right." One of the public exclaimed: "By Allah, Ibn al-Khattab, as soon as we see any trace of crookedness in you, we will set it right with the sharp edge of our swords!" This reminds us of the woman who refuted his opinion while he stood on the pulpit, yet he was not embarrassed or upset by it. On the contrary, he mildly said, "The woman is right and 'Umar is wrong!"
'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah honor him) said to a man who objected to his opinion in a certain matter, "You are right and I am wrong." All in all, Allah says,
"Over all endowed with knowledge is the One, the All-Knowing." (12:76)
Islam's precedence in setting the bases
Islam has the precedence over democracy in setting the bases on which it flourishes. Yet, it leaves the details open to the juristic reasoning of scholars, so that they will conform to the teachings of their religion, the interest and the local temporal development of man's life and circumstances.
Advantage of democracy
The advantages of democracy can be expressed through the following lines.
It has – through long struggle with tyrants, oppressors, kings and prices – come across some formulas and methods that are nowadays regarded as the best of guarantees to protect people from the oppression and injustice of tyrants. However, although these methods have guaranteed the peoples' rights, a man- made system has several shortcomings and defects to suffer from.
As a matter of fact, nothing prevents the thinkers and prominent figures of humanity from inventing novel methods to achieve the best of all things. Until this happens, we should adopt the democratic methods necessary for maintaining justice, Shura, human rights and for standing fast against the mischief done by tyrants in the land.
It is, moreover, legally admitted that what pertains to a duty is a duty in turn, and that the legal ends that require specific means grant the means the legality of the ends. And there is no legal objection to adopting a theory or an idea initiated by non-Muslims (as long as it promotes the public interest of Muslims). For the Prophet (peace be upon him) adopted – during the battle of Al-Ahzab – the idea of digging a trench which was originally a Persian device.
The Prophet (may peace be upon him) benefited from the non-Muslim captives after the battle of Badr in teaching the Muslim youth how to read and write (for them to ransom themselves) in spite of the fact that they were unbelievers. The Prophetic hadith thus maintains,
"Wisdom is the avowed request of the Muslim. Where he finds it, he is the most deserving of it (to benefit himself and his society)."
I have referred in some of my books that we have the right to borrow what is of benefit to us of the ideas, disciplines and systems so long as they do not run counter to the essence of a text or a firm juristic rule. Nevertheless, we must modify and add to what we have borrowed in such a way that it will lose its former identity, and assume a different one that is much more telling of our own idiosyncrasy.
Thus, we take in the ways, mechanism, and potentialists of democracy which are in harmony with our religion. Simultaneously, we have the right to make the necessary changes and modifications. We do not have to assimilate its philosophy is liable to turn what is unlawful (Haram) into lawful (Halal) and vice versa or drop what is obligatory altogether.
------------------------------------------------------------
Election is a kind of certificate
From the Islamic point of view, the system of elections and polls is a certificate of validity and credibility to the candidate. The voter must have these same prerequisites that the witness must have. For, he must be endowed with justice and must have a good reputation as Allah, the Exalted, says:
"And take two witness endowed with justice from among you." (65:2)
And,
"Whom you accept as witnesses." (2:282)
We might as well extenuate the prerequisites of justice according to different circumstances and cases in a way that enables the largest number of citizens to testify. Whoever testifies knowingly to the goodness and devotion of a wicked man, commits perjury which is a great sin that Allah condemns in the same verse which condemns polytheism,
"And shun the abomination of idols, and shun the speaking of falsehood." (22:30)
Whoever votes for the candidate for no other reason than his being one of his relatives, hometown acquaintance, or for some other personal interest, disobeys Allah's, the Exalted, Orders for He says:
"And establish the evidence as before God." (65:2)
Whoever neglects his duty of voting and sits passively watching the honest trustworthy man lose and the unworthy man, who is anything but strong and trustworthy, win with sweeping majority, violates Allah's Command to testify with justice even though, he was called forth to do so. His sin is that he concealed his testimony at a time when the Islamic nation needed it the most for Allah, the Exalted says,
"The witnesses should not decline when they are summoned." (2:282)
And,
"And do not conceal testimony, and whoever conceals it surely his heart is sinful." (2:283)
If the voters and witnesses face these tough conditions then the candidate himself must embark on more fastidious and scrutinizing journey to prove his credibility and worthiness. If we add these prerequisites, instructions and guarantees to the election system, we will turn it into an Islamic one, notwithstanding the fact that it was originally borrowed from others.
The people's rule and Allah's Rule
As we said earlier, we want to concentrate on the essence of democracy for it is definitely in harmony with that of Islam. To ascertain this, we must refer to its original references and assimilate the gems of knowledge of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and the history of Wise Caliphs registered there. We must not refer to the history of oppressors, and sinful kings and rulers, nor to Fatwas of the lost and deluded scholars of sultans, nor to the over enthusiastic and rash devoted Muslims who are not firmly grounded in knowledge.
We must not take for granted claim that since democracy means that people must rule themselves, then it rejects the fact that the ruling is for none but Allah. Now, democracy is based on the principle of the people's rule, but does not contradict the principle that says that the rule is only for Allah on which Islamic Jurisprudence id based. It rather runs counter to the principle of the individual's rule on which dictatorship is based.
Upholding democracy does not necessarily mean the rejection of the Rule of Allah that is conducted and embraced by human beings. This idea does not as much cross through the minds of most of the advocates of democracy, for they are possessed with the rejection of dictatorship and the rule of the people – warranted despotic and oppressor sultans. Indeed, the only thing they are concerned with in democracy is the fact that people must choose their rulers. Furthermore, they must hold them to account for any transgression or misdemeanor. People must not follow their orders if they violate the constitution or, in Islamic terms, enjoin people to disobey Allah. Also, they must have the right to despose them if they go astray or turn into oppressors and refuse to listen to advice or warning.
-------------------------------------------------------------
What does "Rule is only for God" mean?
I would like to stress that "judgment is only for God" is a typical Islamic principle which scholars ascertained by consensus in their quest for the legitimate rule and ruler. They agreed on the fact that Allah is the Sole Ruler and the Prophet is His Messenger. Consequently, Allah. the Exalted, ordains, prohibits, enjoin, forbids, judges and legislates.
The Khawarijites' statement: "There is no rule for anyone but Allah" is a fact per se. Yet, what was used against them is that they misplaced and misused the word to support their rejection of human arbitration in dispute; a claim that is highly in contradiction to the text of Qur'an which states that arbitration is lawful more than once. The arbitration between the husband and wife if they fear disunity is one of the most famous examples.
As a result, the Commander of the Faithful 'Ali (may Allah honor him) refuted the Khawarijites' claim saying, "A truthful word that leads to falsehood." He described their statement as truthful, but held the fact that it led to falsehood against them. This truthful word is quoted from the Qur'an:
"The rule is only for God" is a fixed fact that has two aspects:
"Do they not see how We diminish the land from its borders? (how we have reduced mighty empires) And God rules and there is none to revise His Decrees, and He is Swift in reckoning." (13:41)
Thus, the ruling means here that of the universe and destiny – not of legislation and decree.
When a Muslim calls for democracy, he does so for he considers it as a system for ruling that embodies the political principles of Islam in its choice of ruler, in its emphasis on Shuraand advice, in its enjoining good and forbidding wrong, in its resistance of oppression and despotism and in its rejection of disobedience to Allah, particularly if it led to ascertainable "flagrant disbelief."
In consequence, the constitution states that the official religion of the state is Islam and that Islamic Law is the source of legislation. This goes side by side with upholding democracy. Thus, there is an emphasis on the fact that the rule is only for Allah. That is to say, the rule as regards the Shari'ah which always has the upper hand.
We can add a clear and precise article that says that every law or system that contradicts the details of Islamic Law is judged as false. This procedure is in fact done for emphasis , not for stating a brand new fact.
It is unnecessary while calling for democracy to think that the rule of the people is an alternative for Allah's Rule, for both are in harmony. If the opposite is true, then the researcher and scholars are of the opinion that what is necessary in any school not be taken as an independent school from the original one. Consequently, it is not allowed to stigmatize people with disbelief or evil-doing by virtue of the necessary instruction in their schools, for they might not follow these necessary instructions or even think about them.
Is the majority's judgment against Islam?
This group of Islamists made a list of their evidence that democracy is alien to Islam, and that it is an imported principle. Among them is the fact it is based on the judgment of majority and it exclusively has the right to elect the person who will assume power. It is always in control of state affairs and it has the final decision concerning any controversial issues for voting in democracy is the last resort that will settle controversies. If a certain viewpoint harvested the absolute or required majority, then it must be followed although it might be wrong or false.
In their opinion, Islam does not even acknowledge this means. Moreover, it does not prefer a certain viewpoint and on another solely because the majority agrees to it, for it must at first conceive this viewpoint per se and determine whether it is right or wrong. On the one hand, if it is right, Muslims will follow it notwithstanding the fact that only one voter gave it his voice. It is sustainable even if no one at all gave it his voice. On the other hand, if it is wrong, Muslims will reject it altogether notwithstanding the fact that it harvested 99% of the eligible votes.
They also claim that the Qur'an verses witness that the majority is always on falsehood. They recite the consecutive verses to prove their claim.
"And if you obey most of those on earth, they would lead you astray from the Path of God." (6:116)
And,
"And most of the people will not believe, though you desire it ardently." (12:103)
And,
"….but most of the people do not know." (7:187)
And,
"….but most of them do not understand." (29:63)
And,
"….but most of the people do not believe." (11:17)
And,
"…but most of the people are ungrateful" (2:243)
They reiterated that the good, pious and devout people are always a minority as Allah, the Exalted, says,
"Few of My servants are thankful." (34:13)
And,
"…except those who believe and do righteous deeds and how few they are." (38:24)
It is quite easy to refute this falsified viewpoint. For, we are supposed to talk about democracy in a Muslim society; the majority of which are learned, perceptive and grateful believers. We are definitely not talking about a society of ungrateful people who went astray from Allah's Way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic – Inviolable
There are certain matters which voting cannot, in any way, interfere with, for they are fixed and firmly-established. They are unchangeable and will not change unless the society itself changes.
The fundamentals of religion and the fixed rules of Islam are not open to vote. Voting may be applied only in controversial matters which are open to Ijtihad. These ambiguous matters that give rise to much controversy are such as to choose one of the candidates for a certain post (e.g. the president of the state, to issue traffic laws, to organize the construction-license given to trading, industrial stores or hospitals). Voting also includes the rest of what scholars call "continuous interests". It also includes the decision of whether to proclaim war or not, to impose taxes or not, to impose emergency law or not, to set a certain time for presidency or not, and to determine whether it is lawful or not to re-elect the president and the time that should be set for his new presidency, etc.
The question that arises here is that if these controversies are not settled, should we be satisfied with leaving them suspended, or should we take a stand and make decisions? But, is it possible to make a decision or choice without someone or something to scale it up or down, or to be more precise, a preponderant factor?
The Majority is a valid preponderant factor
Common sense, Islamic law, and reality necessitate the presence of an impetus that will scale decision making. This impetus or preponderant factor which has the upper hand on controversial issues is the number of people. If two people agreed on an opinion and a single person had at different opinion, then it is most probably that they are on the right side because they outnumber him.
Satan haunts the single person and stays at a distance from two people
The hadith reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
"Satan haunts the single person and stays at distance from two people"
The hadith: "If both of you agreed on a single advice"
The authentic hadith reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Abu Bakr and 'Umar,
"If both of you agreed on a single advice, I would not have acted against it."
This means that two voices overpower a single one even if it was the Prophet's own voice or opinion so long as the matter in question is off the borders of legislation and holy texts.
Submission to the majority opinion in Uhud
We saw the Prophet (peace be upon him) side with the opinion of the majority in Uhud and march to meet the disbelievers in battle outside Medina his initial opinion and the opinion of his closest Companions was to stay in Medina and fight the disbelievers there.
The mutual consultation of the six Companions
We also remember when 'Umar chose six of the Companions to hold a mutual consultation and determine who was to become the next caliph. The majority of the six chose the next Caliph; the minority had to agree to their choice and obey the Caliph-elect. In case they ended up with three-to-three votes they were to resort to an outsider - 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr - for extra vote that will scale up or down their final judgment. If they did not accept him, then they have the alternative who is 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn 'Awf.
The hadith on "The large multitude"
This hadith reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw a large multitude displayed in front of him and recognized them as his nation. He then ordered Muslims to follow in their footsteps. The large multitude means the public, the masses, and the majority of people. This hadith is supported by the fact that scholars firmly believe in what the majority of scholars have reached by consensus, as regards controversial issues. This consensus gives the hadith more credibility, for there is not enough counter-narration to scale it down.
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, in some of his books, was of the opinion that the final judgment is for the preponderant number if the two controversial point of views are equally beneficial.
The claim that preponderance or preference is given for what is right, even though no one votes for it and that what is wrong must be rejected even if it harvested 99% of the votes, is only applicable in firmly-established and inviolable texts that deal with Islamic law and these are but few. In this respect, the saying goes, "If you are on the right side, then you are theJama'ah even if you are all alone."
Preponderance is inevitable to settle the issues that require juristic reasonong, such as the matters which no texts in the Qur'an or Sunnah dealt with; the equivocal or ambiguous if there are opinions and counter-opinions supported by evidence. The only way to settle the dispute then is to resort to the preponderant factor and the polls. It is the best way known by human beings and appreciated by those who have enough sense to make the right choice among Muslins. Islamic law does not oppose voting. On the contrary, there are certain texts and historical incidents that support it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Political despotism – The plague of the Islamic nation in the past and the present
Neglecting the Shura is the first symptom of deterioration in the history of Islamic nation. The "Wise Caliphate" was transformed into "tyrannical sovereignty". However, some Companions called this system of ruling (Caesarism) or (Khursauism). Their despotism infected the Muslims who ruled their conquered kingdoms which Allah bequeathed to them at a time when they should have looked down upon those whom Allah has made an example and avoided sins and evil-doing that led those kingdoms to deterioration and ruin. But instead, they chose to transfer their political system that was based on despotism and haughtiness to their lands that must not be led by those who crave haughtiness and corruption.
The only reason for the deterioration and weakness of the Islamic nation and the IslamicDa'wah is the suffering of despotic rule that haunts people and turns their lives into a living hell. Oppression, tyranny and military forces are the weapons used by the enemies of Islam to smite Shari'ah, impose secularism, and enforce westernization upon people. This despotic rule that is flagrant at times and disguised at others by slogans of pseudo-democracy, is controlled openly and from behind the scenes by anti-Islam forces who devote their time, money and effort to get rid of Islamic Da'wah and Islamic resistance movements, and to chase, torture and displace Muslim scholars and activists.
Political freedom - a priority
The revival of Islam and the sweeping appeal of its Da'wah have not been possible without the available limited freedom. This restricted freedom has the Muslim scholars and activists the opportunity to illuminate and satisfy the longing of the hearts and souls.
The Islamic Da'wah and the Islamic movements in our times must fight for the acquisition of freedom. All the devout and sincerely devoted Muslim activists must stand as one man to call upon people to Allah's Way – Da'wah – for it is our one and only hope for a promising future.
I must stress the fact that I am not fonf of using loan-words such as democracy as a means to express Islamic concepts. Definitely, it is more appropriate to use exclusive Islamic terminology to express Islamic values and concepts.
Yet, if this term was already in use, then we could not possibly ignore it. Instead, we should know its meaning and connotations so as not to mis understand, overestimate, or underestimate it. Consequently, our judgment will be void of prejudiceness and rashness. We should not be ashamed that we use a loan-word for what really matters is content repercussions.
Nevertheless, many of those who work in the field of Da'wah and writing used the word "democracy" unwaveringly. For instance, 'Abbas al-'Aqqad (may Allah bless him) wrote a book entitled, Islamic Democracy and professor Khalid Muhammad Khalid went too far when he claimed that democracy is the equivalent of Islam itself! I have refuted his claim, in case he is interested to read it in my book Islamic Revival and the Laments of Arab and Islamic Countries.
Many Islamists advocate democracy as the appropriate system to rule, the guarantee for freedom, and the safeguard against tyranny; providing that it will be a true democracy that represents the people, rather than the ruler and his retinue. It is not enough to uphold the slogan of democracy and at the same time to stifle it by throwing free men in prisons, torturing the innocent, holding military trials to get rid of any nuisance, and to enforce emergency laws that haunt every free man who dares to question the ruler or objects to his will.
I am a veteran advocated of democracy, for it is the systematized and easy way to achieve our aims. In other words, it paves our way to a decent life in which we have absolute freedom to call upon people to Allah's Way and Islam without the risk of arrest or execution. Moreover, it guarantees for our people a life of freedom and dignity, the right to choose their rulers, and the right to hold them to account for their deeds and to depose them if they commit any violations without resorting to upheavals, assassination or the like.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shura – an obligation, not an option
Some Scholars still insist that Shura is optional and that the ruler must consult trustworthy and honest people. Yet, he does not have to follow their opinion or advice.
I have already tackled this issue saying that Shura will be futile if the ruler consults the honest and trustworthy people, then ignores their opinion and does whatever he likes and whatever his retinue made fair – seeming to him. Throughout our history those honest, umbiased, devout and trustworthy people have been the decision-makers.
Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir, reported on the authority of Ibn Mardawih that when 'Ali (may Allah honor him) was asked to interpret what Allah means by "reach a decision" when He says,
"And consult them in the matter and when you reach a decision, place your trust in God."
He said, "He means that he must consult the honest, unbiased, devout and trustworthy people and act upon their advice.
If this issue has arisen much controversy, then the only way to settle it is the obligation ofShura.
If the nation or a considerable part of it voted for the decision reached at by Shura, then it becomes obligatory to follow it and put an end to controversy and dispute.
The Prophet (peace br upon him) said, "Muslims should abide by their conditions."
In consequence, if a president or a ruler was elected under these conditions, then a Muslim must not break the covenant and chose another ruler. Moreover, the fulifillmentof the Covenant of God is obligatory in Islam as Allah says,
"And fulfill the Covenant of God when you have made a covenant, and do not break the oaths after they have been confirmed, you have made your oath, in God's Name. Indeed God knows all that you do."
For instance, when 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn 'Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) offered to give 'Ali (may Allah honor him) the allegiance (Bay'ah) on the condition that he followed the teachings of the Holy Book, the Sunnah, and the regimes of the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and 'Umar), he refused to follow the last condition – following the regimes of both Abu Bakr and 'Umar. For, if he accepted it, he would have had to abide by it. His rejection stemmed out of the fact that he was an Imam who practiced his own juristic reasoning and had his independent opinions from those of the two Sheikhs. Besides, time and circumstances had underwent a drastic change. On the other hand, when 'Uthman had the same offer and terms, he accepted them; hence, he was given the Bay'ah. Thus, if the Islamic nation elected someone on a certain condition, he must do his utmost to abide by them.
To sum everything up, Islamic Shura conforms to the essence of democracy.
