Muslim Men while prayer 

​Warning: No part of this editorial be copied or reproduced in anyway without the consent of the author. Remember that plagiarism is a crime according to Copyright Ordinance of 1962. {copyright (amendment) ordinance 2000}

Before coming to the question of how compatible they are to one another, let me first specify what really is democracy? And by democracy I do not here mean what some refer as ‘Perfect Democracy’ which to me is more a modified version of a secularist liberal state. Democracy is not the name of this system on which today most of the West is functioning but the princple that “the people of the land should be deciding how and who should be running their state”. How different countries have implemented this principle according to their needs that may differ but as far the principle is concerned where ever the masses will be getting complete ownership, there would be a Democracy. Let that be under the banner of socialism, secularism, facisim or even theocracies.

People praying in Morocco

What most of conservative Muslim Scholars do wrong is, that they either do not analyse Democracy in the way they should and reject it all together because it is something coming from the West or even if they do, they mix the principle with the system, which west has adopted to implement it and thus consider whole of it as Kufr, without even putting forward what they think is wrong in the system and should be amended. This approach is what has ended us up here. The impact which this of their miscalculated stands made on their following is what really hurdles us today in getting rid of these tyranies extending half of the Middle East. To them a system where a son succeeds his father with not only his wealth but also his nation with little or no eligibility is acceptable but giving people the ownership they deserve is not.

Masjid al-Aqsa, Islam’s 3rd holiest mosque

When they are asked what sort of system do they want? their answer is ‘nothing else but Caliphate’ but even they don’t know how to get and then how to sustain it once achieved. If not Democracy then what really is the system which Islamic scriptures propose and what really was an ideal Caliphate like in comparison to how today a democracy is? These are the questions I’ll be trying to answer in this article.

For a while even if we accept the Conservative view point that Islam demands Muslims to make an universal Islamic state, they refer as Caliphate the main question still remains how the head of that Caliphate be choosen? Will a Wahih (divine revelation) be coming to tell us? or as some suggest the  ‘Majlis-e-Shura’ (clergy) will decide? and how we will be determining who deserves and who deserves not to be a part of that Shura? A scholar for one may not be a scholar for other and what justification do those who suggest this, have from the Islamic scriptures to back this of their suggested role of clergy into state up?  The point of the matter is that most of those who call for such solutions themselves donot have any clue about the technicalities of the matter they are talking about. To them it is more a matter of one speech, speech over matter over!

Taliban Fighter

And then there are those like the Taliban and ISIS who are hellbound to force who they think deserves to be the Caliph on over 2 billion people of this world. If we accept their logic, At everyother corner there will be a man gathering hunderd thousand people in his support and declaring his own version of Caliphate.

Crescent the symbol of Islamic Faith

The only way legitimacy comes to a Ruler in Islam like in any other feasible ideology is through the support of believers. The only principle which Quran put forward in regards to how Muslims should decide thing among one another is of ‘Amarhum Shurabianhum’ whose rough translation is ‘let the majority of believers decide what is better!’ This is exactly what democracy is about. When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died he left no one as his successor. Following this princple is what Muslims decided who should be succeeding him, same goes with all of four Rashidun caliphs. All of them were elected by the believers let it be Hazrat Abubaker, Omer, Osman and in last Ali and when this did not happen by nomination of Yazid, Muslims were divided into two factions. Elections back then ofcourse were not of the way they are today, but in whatever way people could be consulted they were. Each and every one of whom who was present while electing the first caliph were nominated by their tribe, this in true sense was democratic.

Like Western democracies are based on western values, Islamic democracy can be based on Islamic values. Need is just to accept that in its essence there is nothing objectionable in democracy and that it is the closest to Caliphate people can get.

Islamic scholars praying together after there annual meet

This fear which is among conservative scholars that in case they approve democracy they will indirectly make ways for the indoctrination of western agenda into society is completely baseless, the only way they can unite the Muslims and resist this process of westernisation is through giving people a workable system. I never understood why they mistrust the Muslim Majority? Why they think that if Muslims will be given a chance to make their laws on their own they will be having laws other than Islamic Sharia? and by implying this what they think is that without the will of people they can if ever got chance implement Sharia on those who deep-down don’t want it. Had things could be forced down against the people’s will won’t Iran and Turkey be secularist states today? 

Parliament of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 

We don’t even need to put this in constitution that no law will be made against Islamic Sharia, wherever Muslim Majority will be given chance they will prefer themselves to be subjected to Islamic laws, rather than civil laws and then there is this fear that what if a non competent and an insincere man win the elections? I ask why is this fear not when they endorse a monarch after a monarch? Unlike in monarchy when people get chance they elect somone for a reason and then there can be checks on the one choose by the people through judiciary so that he could not act against the tenants of state’s constitution. All justified reservations one has in regards to system with time can be addressed,  let them be issues like how much power the caliph should have, to the tenure of his, need is just to accept the principle of ‘Amarhum Shurabianhum’ and to me that is the only way Muslim of this world can be United under one flag in this age. 
About the columnist:

Hamza Abbasi is an A’Levels student and freelance columnist from Bahawalpur, Pakistan. 

Advertisements