It
is a well-known fact that Islamic social order started with Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH), who was himself not from any royal family. The major and important
regions of the world had, till then, known kingship as the only form of
government, and so the Islamic government of Medina, was indeed a
breakthrough; and therefore it deserved
to be given due recognition in the pages of history. That the succession of the
prophet, in the matters of the realm, was no easy challenge, and as the events
proved, the aftermath was bloody. The departure of the prophet from the scene
had the potential to deal a death-blow to the entire edifice of Islam, but the
wisdom of the prophet had made it possible to avert that same. Muslims of the
time, by and large understood his preference for the future leadership all the
way down the line. The institution of
Khilafat was a revolutionary step in that time-period, and helped to consolidate
the nascent religious and social order in a big and effective way. If the proof
of pudding lies in eating, then the proof of the success of Islam was provided
in subsequent centuries by its standing as the dominant social force of the
world. It cannot be denied that the
institution of Khilafat over the first four Khalifas, was by and large
democratic, according to the prevailing standards, (and it certainly did not
follow the royal lineage), although admittedly there was no voting machine
installed for their elections. But I am sure our friends in the West will be
inclined to condone this procedural aberration by recalling the various stages
through which democracy has evolved in their own societies. So, when the Western
leaders and thinkers talk of the incompatibility of Islam with democracy, the
Muslims feel cheated of the recognition due to their prophet for heralding
(quite apart from the religious ideology of Islam), a remarkable historical
revolution in the business of governance. -- Manzurul
HaqueDemocracy in Islam
By Manzurul
Haque
For good reason or bad, the world community
represented by the West, thinks that ‘democracy is incompatible with Islam or
vice-versa’. But I would like to think
that the couching of this question in these words does a disservice to the cause
of democracy, by foreclosing understanding on the part of the world community,
and action on the part of the Muslims.
It is a well-known fact that Islamic social order
started with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who was himself not from any royal family.
The major and important regions of the world had, till then, known kingship as
the only form of government, and so the Islamic government of Medina, was indeed
a breakthrough; and therefore it
deserved to be given due recognition in the pages of history. That the
succession of the prophet, in the matters of the realm, was no easy challenge,
and as the events proved, the aftermath was bloody. The departure of the prophet
from the scene had the potential to deal a death-blow to the entire edifice of
Islam, but the wisdom of the prophet had made it possible to avert that same.
Muslims of the time, by and large understood his preference for the future
leadership all the way down the line.
The institution of Khilafat was a revolutionary step in that time-period,
and helped to consolidate the nascent religious and social order in a big and
effective way. If the proof of pudding lies in eating, then the proof of the
success of Islam was provided in subsequent centuries by its standing as the
dominant social force of the world. It
cannot be denied that the institution of Khilafat over the first four Khalifas,
was by and large democratic, according to the prevailing standards, (and it
certainly did not follow the royal lineage), although admittedly there was no
voting machine installed for their elections. But I am sure our friends in the
West will be inclined to condone this procedural aberration by recalling the
various stages through which democracy has evolved in their own societies. So,
when the Western leaders and thinkers talk of the incompatibility of Islam with
democracy, the Muslims feel cheated of the recognition due to their prophet for
heralding (quite apart from the religious ideology of Islam), a remarkable
historical revolution in the business of governance.
But whatever, this is only one side of the coin.
The fact remains that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and even in this
twenty-first century, Muslims have become visibly marked for failing to bring
about democratic changes in their societies like the rest of the world. At the
same time however it would be grossly inadequate to label this failure to Islam,
for two reasons. One, this is historically inaccurate in view of the early
experience of Islam, but more important is the second reason. Instead of
promoting democracy amongst Muslims, this view aims to hit the ideology of Islam
and so the cause of democracy is failed by diverting the attention elsewhere.
The discussions of democratic changes, movements, and formulations have to be
divorced from the blame-game and have to focus on analyses of the specific
social situations, sympathy of other democratic forces, and deep understanding
of the problems that come in the evolution of democracy in respective Muslim
societies. It has to be understood that all Muslims are not paragons of virtue
and if some of them do not hesitate to subvert the religion of Islam to meet
their vested interests, there is no reason to believe that those some of them
will not subvert democracy. In these
murky situations un-thoughtful bringing in of Islam and Islamic history for
learned critical discourse is the greatest disservice to the cause of humanity
as also to the cause of democracy.
The idea of writing all this is not to flaunt the
merits of Islamic form of government etc, but to advance the cause of democracy
in Muslim societies with the good-will of the democratic forces of the rest of
the world. It is possible that our analysis will trample upon the toes of some
thinkers of a different genre but we would like to make an earnest appeal for
trust in a fellow human being. Islam is
a theistic religious order, with clarity of the concept of monotheism, while it
also admits of a degree of monism to help blend men with men and men with
God. There is reason to believe that a
society such as this, can practice democracy and meet the democratic aspirations
of its people.
I am sure the most vocal champions of democracy
will concede that every democracy operates within a limit for which methods have
been put in place. For example any democracy, even with the full support of its
elected representatives and in a fit of extreme generosity or fatigue, cannot
shut shop and hand over the government to a dictator or to communist rebels.
Except for the British Parliament, there is no legislature in the world that has
unfettered powers. But even in the case of British Parliament, the ever vigilant
and highly evolved British community of a rather small size will surely act as a
bulwark against the Parliament, if and when need arises, although we hope it
never does, because we appreciate the achievements of the Western Anglo-Saxon
civilization, which has contributed greatly to modern world civilization and
which we believe to be contributing greatly in future too.
I think, within the democratic societies of the
Muslim communities; which have travelled thus far in the company of Islam, the
paramount need to preserve the Islamic values needs to be recognized, as a
legitimate need, and so putting in place some checks and balances in the
polity’s Constitution to this effect, should not raise eyebrows elsewhere.
Everybody in the east, west, north and south must ponder as to why is there such
extreme urgency to see Islam deprived of its protective cover, at the earliest
possible opportunity? Is there some bias in it and is it healthy to carry such
bias, and if at all such bias is there and is perceived by the Muslims to be
there, then will it not arouse in them a reaction that could easily be avoided
in the larger interest of democracy and well-being of a common man. Our argument
is not to suggest that it might be happening but if there is slightest chance of
its happening, then there is reason to avoid such biases.
We have in the shape of an experiment, the case
of Iran. One great objection of the West is that this is no way to have
democracy. But the objection is misplaced. The problem I think is with the
Guardian Council, but actually the focus should be more on electoral reforms.
The Guardian Council is accepted by the Muslims as a whole in so far as they
protect the essential features of an Islamic society. This matter is deeply
embedded in the hearts of the Muslims and I only wish non-Muslim brethren
understood this. Secondly this love for Islam is certainly not directed against
non-Muslims. If the legitimacy of this function of the Guardian Council is
accepted, then accepting the legitimacy of the structure would not be a problem.
If these fundamental questions of legitimacy are not raised, then we can attend
to more urgent needs of further democratization of the Iranian society,
including redefining of its national goals. It is one’s wish that Western powers
led by USA understood the true nature of things so that the focus of Muslims
could go to the question of acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. Muslims have
a great case to argue within themselves not to go for nuclear weapons, but
rather to work for nuclear disarmament as offered by the US.
Then the other experiment was of Talibans in
Afghanistan. Few people in the West know that Talibans are not the Sunni
equivalent of Islamic Republic of Iran. Even we, as Sunnis know that Talibans
were Frankensteins that got made for various reasons. The true equivalent in Sunni Islam is the
various Islamic parties led by scholarly Muslims whose program of governance is
not very dissimilar from the Iranian’s.
But the reason for lack of success of these Islamic parties is their
having been outsmarted by the clever kings, the clever dictators, and the clever
civil leaders. However with the failings of all these clever people, the chances
for the success of these Islamic democratic parties are getting brighter in the
Sunni world. The only thing that is
holding them back is their inability to connect with the masses because of their
inhibition to make bold statements on the various crying issues of the Muslim
society. The weaknesses of these parties emerge from their inability to handle
‘ijtihad’ so far, which in turn fails to give rise to the desired level of
political activism, necessary to catch the imagination of masses. At the same
time it goes without saying that this one is a purely domestic exercise and the
West can do pretty little in these matters except to get away from the entirely
unnecessary feeling or fear that these Islamic democrats will have a visceral
hatred for the West. Certainly they will not, under the influence of the
enlightened Muslims. So instead of hindering these Islamic democratic movements,
the West could co-opt with them as partners. I think the world will benefit in
more ways than one, from the shaking of the hands of the West, representing the
world community, with Islam.
3:18 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment