Democracy Vs Shura

The question is quite often posed these days whether Islâm is compatible with democracy. It is striking to note that those who say it is not are such a heterogeneous group, they hardly share anything else. Just as groups of Islâmic intelligentsia at the turn of the century were fascinated by the West to such a degree that they called for the adoption of the good as well as the bad in the Western experience, the present time witnesses such disillusionment with the moral decline and the political injustices of the West that many reject, by way of reaction, all that is Western, including democracy. Secular dictators of Islâmic countries, of course, abhor democracy by virtue of being dictators and have vested interest in featuring democracy to their Muslim masses as un-Islâmic. Dictators who wear Islâmic garb and claim to be Islâmic also propagate the view that democracy is alien to the Islâmic faith and have in their retinue and payroll religious scholars that are willing to play that Machiavellian role.

Traditional adversaries of Islâm in the West, both in the media and political circles, are also relentlessly bent on featuring Islâm as an anti-democratic religion that has no room for democratic values. The aim of course is to further alienate Islâm from the psyche of the Western public opinion, making it both possible and palatable to demonise Muslims in a way that facilitates the acceptability by public opinion of the harsh ways and unjust positions by their governments towards Muslims. They often raise up the issue of the lack of democracy in the majority of Islâmic countries.

What they do not mention is that the only effective support of the dictators against the democratic aspiration of their peoples in the Middle East is provided by the Western democracies.

Shura

It is perhaps not feasible to compare the Islâmic system that came into being early in the seventh century with the democratic institutions of the West, that began to evolve many centuries later, and as we see them today. Nor are the Western democratic systems an exact replica of one another but simply share the principle and ideology of democracy. The Qur’ân (fourteen centuries ago) spelled out explicitly the principle of "Shura", which means that issues are to be decided by joint deliberation and consultation. The practical applications of this principle in the earliest days of Islâm (the time of the prophet and his immediate successors) qualify it to be considered the forerunner of democracy.

Only in his capacity as prophet was Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa salâm to be obeyed without reserve, but outside the area of conveying and explaining religion as he received it from Allâh, Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa salâm himself made it clear that he was an ordinary human being who could not foretell the future or claim to have more knowledge over ordinary people in their respective areas of artisanship or trade. On the eve of the battle of 'Badr', the first and historically the most significant military encounter between Islâm and the Arab alliance of idolaters, the prophet drew a military plan entailing deployment of his meagre troops in a certain fashion. But then one of his followers would ask him "Is this positioning revelation from Allâh so that we have to abide by it without question, or is it an opinion of strategy and plan?" When Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa salâm answered that it was indeed the latter, his companion gave his sincere criticism and offered an alternate plan which the prophet accepted and adopted; the outcome was a resounding victory.

A year later, the enemies dispatched a large army to attack the Muslims in Madinah. It was Prophet Muhammad's Sallallahu alayhi wa salâm opinion to remain at Madinah and meet the enemy there, but discussions revealed that the majority preferred to march out and make battle with the enemy at Mount Uhud well outside Madinah. Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa salâm yielded to the majority opinion in compliance with the principle of Shura. Muslims achieved an initial victory until the battalion of archers positioned at the mountain top thought that the battle was over and rolled down to join the chase, disobeying clear orders the prophet had given them earlier never to leave their positions no matter whether it was victory or defeat. This caught the eye of Khalid bin al Walîd (a military genius leading a cavalry regiment of the enemies) who took a stealth circle to the mountain top and rolled down on the Muslim infantry so upsetting the balance that the best the Muslims could do was a graceful retreat after incurring heavy losses. Although there was fault twice on part of the Muslims, Qur’ân was shortly revealed addressing Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa salâm, "And it was of the mercy of Allâh that you dealt gently with them (your followers): had you been harsh or thick of heart they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them and ask (Allâh) for their forgiveness and maintain Shura with them." (3:159)

The Holy Prophet’s death meant the conclusion of the prophethood, but he had to be succeeded by a head of state. This was done in a meeting in open debate, with more than one contender, until Abu Bakr the closest companion to the prophet, was chosen by consensus to be first caliph. On that occasion, established Islâmic principle was reiterated and emphasised, foremost of all by the caliph himself, the significant rules in which are:

Things went on in a very promising manner for sometime. The second khalifah (Umar) further alerted the nation of its duty to support him when right but to correct him if wrong, to which a man answered, "If you go wrong we will correct you even by our swords." The caliph's comment was, "You are no good if you don't say it, and we are no good if we don't accept it."

Antithesis of Present Democracy

In short, it looks like the antithesis of what we see in the majority of Islâmic countries nowadays. We have no doubt that if things evolved in the same direction ever since, as the Islâmic empire expanded and the Islâmic civilisation developed in maturity and sophistication, that the Muslims would have achieved a form of government that endorses the best in modern day democracies while free from their shortcomings.

The Middle Path

Despotism and dictatorship have always been a greater affliction to the Ummah than democracy. We would be blind if our history fails to reveal to us this fact. To those who accuse Islâm of being intolerant to democracy, we say you are wrong, but there is a major difference. In a Western democracy Allâh can be vetoed or outvoted if His opponents can muster a majority vote. Under Islâm the constitution is based on the Shari'a so any legislation that conflicts with it will be unconstitutional.