Is Democracy Islamic?

Following is derived from two different discussions. "Democracy and Islam" is derived from multiple discussions especially a facebook reply to a column which in my view criticized democracy without proper analysis. After that, summary of a discussion with a friend who considers Khilafat as a system different from Democracy is shared. At a later stage, I plan to polish the arguments into one writing but considered that in case I don't find time later, the arguments are worth sharing at this stage as well.

Democracy and Islam:

After the Prophet SA's death, the direct connection of Wahi is not available and Divine law has to be interpreted by the people. Islam guides us to run the affairs through majority

as it is in Quran

"And their affairs are run by mutual consultation" 42:38

And it is in Hadith

"Allah's Hand is with Majority"

Or like Hazrat Umar RA said about election of rular that "The one who takes someone's bai't without public consultation is worthy of being killed."

So in principle, In a Muslim majority country democracy is basically a manifestation of what Islam suggested. I think its "hatred towards west" that makes people hate democracy. It is hard to accept and digest that west actually took the lead in implementing a simple Islamic (as well as common sense) principle. To further ensure that if a Law is against Islam it should be challenge-able in court, "Objective resolution" is already part of our constitution.

I have talked to quite a few people talking about Khilafat/Shariat. Most of them are unclear themselves about what will be the process to elect a leader. Mostly they consider themselves as the saviors of Islam and if they become the rulers, it will suddenly become Islamic (Like TTP, Al Qaeda, Sufi Muhammad etc) otherwise its not. Without defining what process they are are fighting for they don't even hesitate to use force to try to get power and somehow consider such efforts as Jihad. Unfortunately, many people keep silent on such deviant groups just because they are unclear themselves and these groups belong to their own sect.

Hizb-ut-Tehreer has done some home work and they have suggested a System which is something like this:

The territory will be divided in administrative divisions called Willayah. There will be two rounds of voting. In first round of voting, a member will be elected in every administrative division (Wilayah/حلقہ). The elected members will elect a sub-group from themselves called Majlis-e-Ummah taht will run affairs. Among the candidates of Khilafat, Majlis-e-Ummah will at first step short list 6 candidates from eligible ones. In second round, 2 candidates from those 6 will be short listed. Then people will vote for one of two-candidates to be elected as Khalifa.

It seems to be very close to (but not exactly) presidential form of government. Probably that's why Dr Israr Ahmad once said that if Americans include "Objective Resolution" in their constitution that will be pretty much Islamic system in his view. One can see that even the system proposed by Hizb-ut-Tehreer is pretty much democratic.

It is also important to note that this process is not mentioned in Quran and Sunnah directly but is derived by a subset of scholars from their understanding of what they considered better among differing acts of Sahaba RA primarily selection of Khilfa-e-Rashidun. Scholars from different school of thought disagree on it. As per Usul-ul-Fiqh, unless there is a consensus at least among scholars about this interpretation, it can not be termed as part of Shari'at. At the moment, It is just an opinion of those scholars who agree to it.

I seriously feel that people need to be educated to stop being manipulated in the name of religion (from buzzwords like Khilafat/Nifaz-e-Shariat etc the terms that we don't find in such context in Quran or Hadith) and analyze this matter a bit more deeply. Islam did not specify an exact system of governance. Prophet SA has guided us that we should not unnecessarily ask questions if Prophet SA has left things open. So we can choose the process that makes sense. Democracy is one option which at least gives us a chance to exercise "Shura", gives a chance that we should give people a reasonable time and then replace them if we don't like them. It does not conflict with Islam. It does not matter whatever we name the process Jamhuriat or Khilafat. We can rename President/Prime Minister as Khalifah. What matters is the process itself, not the names we give it.

Allama Iqbal also appreciated democracy 'as a principle' which in inline with the spirit of Islam. He did criticize western 'implementation' of democracy because of materialism. Here are few excerpts from Iqbal explaining his view.

The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam - Reconstruction - Lecture 6: The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam

For Islam the acceptance of social democracy in some suitable form and consistent with the legal principles of Islam is not a revolution but a return to the original purity of Islam - Iqbal's Letter to Jinnah - Lahore May 28, 1937

The best form of government for such a community would be democracy, the ideal of which is to let a man develop all the possibilities of his nature by allowing him as much freedom as practicable. The Caliph of Islam is not an infallible being; like other Muslims, he is subject to the same law; he is elected by the people and is deposed by them if he goes contrary to the law. Democracy, then, is the most important aspect of Islam as a political ideal. ""Islam as an Ethical and a Political Ideal" - Iqbal's first speech in English (Lahore, April 1908) "

It is, however, extremely satisfactory to note that the pressure of new world-forces and the political experience of European nations are impressing on the mind of modern Islam the value and possibilities of the idea of Ijma. The growth of republican spirit and the gradual formation of legislative assemblies in Muslim lands constitute a great step in advance. The transfer of the power of Ijtihad from individual representatives of schools to a Muslim legislative assembly which, in view of the growth of opposing sects, is the only possible form Ijma can take in modern times, will secure contributions to le gal discussion from laymen who happen to possess a keen insight into affairs - Reconstruction - Lecture 6: The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam

Here he talks about that "Political Sovereignty" in Islam resides in the people"

It was, therefore, early understood that the Political Sovereignty de facto resides in the people; and that the electorate, by their free act of unanimous choice, embody it in a determinate personality in which the collective will is, so as the speak, individualised, without investing this concrete seat of power with any privilege in the eye of the law except legal control over the individual wills of which it is an expression. The idea of universal agreement is in fact the fundamental principle of Muslim constitutional theory. “What the Muslim community considers good,” says the Prophet, “God also considers good.” It is probably on the authority of this saying of the Prophet that al-Ashari developed his political dogma ? “That error is impossible in the united declarations of the whole community.” After the death of Abu Bakr, Omar, who acted as Chief Judge during his predecessor’s Caliphate, was universally elected by the people. - Iqbal's Lecture on Political Thought In Islam which is originally appeared in “The Hindustan Review”, Allahabad (India), December 1910, pp. 527-33 and January 1911, pp. 22-26.

Summary of a discussion with a friend (mentioned as XYZ here) who considered Khilafat as a system different from Democracy:

Summary of main agreements/disagreements:

- We agreed that the process to elect/select ruler is not directly mentioned in Quran and Sunnah of Prophet SA.

- XYZ considers method of selection of khulfa-e-rishideen as Ijma-e-Sahaba, and considers following one of those methods is a binding.

- I disagreed. I don't consider absence of a dissenting voice written in books of Ahadith as conclusive evidence of acceptance i.e Ijma-e-Sahaba. Moreover, I consider that such voices existed in form of Hazrat Fatima RA and Hazrat Ali RA not takng Bai't of Hazrat Abu Bakr RA till she died, they did not even tell Abu Bakr RA about her death and burried her at night (Mentioned in hadith in Bukhari). It is also mentioned in following part of hadith by Umar RA which shows that some people were against appointment of Abu Bakr RA

"اور سن لو بلاشبہ جس وقت حضور اکرم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی وفات ہوی تو ابوبکر رضی اللہ عنہ ہم سب سے بہتر تھے البتہ انصار نے ہماری مخالفت کی تھی اور وہ سب لوگ سقیفہ بن ساعدہ میں جمع ہو گئے تھے۔ اسی طرح علی اور زبیر رضی اللہ عنہما اور ان کے ساتھیوں نے بھی ہماری مخالفت کی تھی اور باقی مہاجرین ابوبکر رضی اللہ عنہ کے پاس جمع ہو گئے تھے۔"

In my view, this shows that it can not be termed as consensus. XYZ thinks that Hazart Ali RA only had issue with "not making him part of process" and as he finally took bai't so Ijma was established. I disagreed to this. We briefly discussed that Shia books also give some information against establishment of such Ijma as well. XYZ said that appointment of Usman RA was discussed in more detail in history. Again my view was that lack of dissenting voice does not establish consensus. My opinion is close to what is said by Ahmed Ibn-e-Hanbal "Whoever claims consensus is a liar.” - Ibn al-Qayyim. I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in. The argument of Imam Ibn Hanbal is that one may claim there is no known case of disagreement or dissent, but a positive claim of ijma (consensus) is simply not tenable without appropriate evidence.

- We agreed that election part of process is somewhat similar between Democracy and Khilafat.

- I understood from XYZ that one main difference will be that Parliament (Majlis-e-Ummah) will have advisory role to Khalifa who will make laws in light of Quran and Sunnah.

- We agreed that a Parliament can pass an un-Islamic law in current Democracy (We somewhat dis-agreed that it can be challenged in court or not based on "Objective Resolution").

- I disagreed with XYZ on whether the process he is mentioning stops a Khalifa to pass an un-Islamic law (which Khalifah considers Islamic either sincerely or due to personal interests). I consider the checks on such act are less stringent in the system he mentioned than in democracy -- where the law making is distributed over a larger set i.e. Parliament. Rest of the checks on Khalifa as mentioned by XYZ were more or less similar to democracy i.e. Qazi-ul-Mazalim (Court), Majlis-e-Ummah (Parliament) and People.

- XYZ disagreed with my view and he thinks that Khalifa will use only Quran and Sunnah for law making. My take was that Quran and Sunnah are always interpreted by people and interpretations differ greatly. At most there can be a check for an un-islamic law to be challenge-able in court which we already have in form of "Objective resolution".

With these were agreements and disagreements the discussion ended.