By Samira Ali BinDaair, Sanaa, Republic of Yemen

[for Part One of this essay, click here]

Islam and Democracy

“Al-adala” (Justice) is a keyword in Islam, and Islam like the great religions preceding it came to regulate man’s life on earth and Allah sent many prophets to admonish the people who had gone to excesses and violated “Nawamis al-kawn” (Allah’s laws governing human interaction with the cosmos). Islam came to complete all the preceding messages in its being comprehensive, encompassing both the spiritual and material. When it is said in the Holy Quran that Allah has created man and jinn to worship Him, obedience to Allah’s laws of how man is to conduct himself on earth is part of that process of worship. In reading the Hadith literature (sayings of the Prophet PBH) and the Sira (biography of the Prophet,PBH), one can see how Islamic teachings were operationalized and exemplified, and what stands out is the absolute sense of justice in Islam.

The way Islamic affairs are to be conducted is through a consultative process (Shura) and in fact the concept of Shura is so important in Islam that a whole Sura (chapter) has been devoted to Shura. In Surat al Shura (ayya 38), it says: “Those who hearken to their Lord and establish regular prayer ….. who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation”. In choosing their leaders, Muslims should undertake the “Mubaya” ( declaring allegiance through the process of “Ijmaa” ( general consensus). No one practiced Shura more than the Prophet (PBH) himself. He always consulted with young and old on all matters. He consulted with Um Salama and Zainab bint Gahsh (wives of the Prophet) and respected their opinions. When the message was first revealed to him, he consulted with Khadija (his first wife) who reassured him and allayed his fears and consulted with her couisin Waraka ibn Nofal Christian monk at the time) who in turn reassured him that it was the angel Gabriel who had also been sent to prophets before him. During the battle of the “Khandak” (trenches) Salman Al-Farisi had informed the Prophet(PBH) about building trenches in battles as practiced in Persia where he came from; this was then adopted by the Muslims. The Prophet(PBH) was not autocratic and left some worldly matters to others who knew better than him. When when farmers in Medina asked him about cross pollination in date planting, his answer was:”You know better about these affairs”.

A Muslim leader has to possess the qualities as clearly defined in Islam, based on proven leadership qualities and high ethical standards and the program he has declared which would be in the interest of the Muslim state and improving the situation of the Muslims. Isnt this democracy “par excellence”? I would also like to refute the claim that to question or go against the “Wali Amr” (Muslim leader), even if he does not live up to his responsibilities, is unIslamic. When it was said that blindly going through this process could cause chaos, this was taken out of context. It is legitimate to question the leader in Islam as long as it is done through the defined means and through the same consultative process. For example, when the Caliph Omar (who was the paragon of justice) was seen in new robes, people asked “min ayna laka hadha”(where from is this). The caliph had to ask his son to explain that he had cut his own robe in order to give to his father who was known to be tall. Such was the sense of justice of Islam and the caliphs. If later the khilafa became politicized and degenerated into power struggles, it was not the fault of Islam but some of the people who practiced it and malpractised the teachings of Islam about justice. The Caliph Omar was known to inspect the affairs of the Muslims on a daily basis before he could sleep. However once when he was returning from bilad al-Sham, he passed an old lady who with her family had nothing to eat and she lamented about the fact that the Caliph did not see people like her. When caliph Omar asked her how was the caliph to know about everyone, she answered if he doesn’t then he is not fit to be the Caliph. So Omar went and brought her flour and water to make bread. When Ali bin Abi Talib passed that way and greeted him as “Wali amr,” the woman was frightened but the Caliph reassured her and asked his companion to register a “tadhalum” (complaint) and that she and her family should be provided for from the “Bayt al-Mal”(Treasury), which was for the upkeep of the Muslim state like the national budget, but also to provide for poor Muslims.

In the early days of Islam, there were small communities in Mecca and Medina as compared to the large populations in present day Muslim countries which experience the breakup of communities and where corruption is rampant, so who is fit to select the ruler? How should the selection process be organized and by whom? I would declare that the same principle as in early Islam be applied, i.e. of choosing the leader through general consensus of the majority whose duty is to ascertain that this leader truly has the qualities of leadership and a track record of honesty and justice within the community he operated. As I said, within modern institutions one cannot but apply modern methods i.e. voting, keeping in mind the fundamental Islamic values of accountability to the people as described in the case of the Caliphs of Islam. Even though some may claim that this is prone to corruption and that those who have more money can wheedle their way into government, it is up to the Muslim public not to allow themselves to be bought and also organize themselves to establish clear accountability lines and demand transparency. Those who make sweeping statements about reenacting Islamic states in Muslim countries without defining important matters concerning statehood, alternative ways of selecting leaders within the modern day circumstances, nor delineate a holistic plan for improving the economy and establishing social justice will have no credibility amongst the people. We need technocrats in different fields in nation building, just as the Holy Prophet had let the Medina farmers get on with what they knew best. Religion came as a mitigating force against human evil, whatever system is adopted, and in most Muslim countries like Yemen and others, the majority are instinctively religious and uphold Islam. The most important element, however, is the value system and social interaction; practicing the rituals is the easiest part of Islam. As the Holy Prophet (PBH) said upon returning from the battle of Badr, which was a success for Muslims: “Kad audna min jihad al-asghar ila jihad al-akbar….jihad al-nafs.” (We have returned from the smaller jihad to the bigger jihad…which is jihad of the self ). This is the process of becoming a better human being and transforming the self from “al-nafs al-amara bisu”( the self which is arrogantly prone to evil) to the “nafs all-awama”(the self which is self-critical with a deep conscience)

I think the issue here is not that of enacting an Islamic state and rejecting democracy, which as I have shown is not in conflict with Islam as a concept of justice and giving a voice to the people, but that of adopting Islamic values in our daily lives and that should start with ourselves, i.e. at the individual level. Only then can we have a truly Islamic state, composed of Muslims who practice the true teachings of Islam and not misinterpreting Islam to serve unIslamic ends. What is crucial at the moment is for Muslims to have cohesiveness amongst themselves and to avoid the state of “fitna” (seeds of disharmony and differences) that has pervaded our societies where one group claims supremacy over another. This will not lead to the creation of an Islamic state, democracy or no democracy, but lead to “al-asr al-inhitat” the days of disarray when the very fabric of Islamic societies was destroyed, due to succumbing to fitna.