Democracising Islam or Islamising Democracy

The spread of democracy and the rise of Islamic political parties that are willing to work with in the available system in order to reach their goals and achieve the targets set in their manifestos has given rise to a very important question: How compatible is democracy to Islam?

Democracy by classic definition is 'the rule of the people by the people for the people'. In more modern terms democracy is used to refer to a system of governance opposite to authoritarian and totalitarian systems. The sovereignty of the people may be an untamed beast, or can be one restricted by constitutional restrictions, depending on the form that democracy takes. In all cases however, a model democracy ensures the protection of human rights, the guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of speech. A model democracy also enshrines the doctrine of Separation of Powers, or separation of the three institution of government, namely the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature. But the fact that a model democracy also enshrines the principle of Checks and Balances means that each one of these otherwise independent institutions do have the authority to act as watchdogs, if I may, over the actions of the other two institutions. So, in the end a model democracy enshrines the concept of Good Governance.This is achieved, not by the total independence of the government institutions, but by their interdependence.

One the other hand, Islam is the belief in the sovereignty of Allah Almighty. He revealed the Qur'an to the Prophet (PBUH) as a source of knowledge and guidance. The Prophet's traditions, known categorically as Sunnah, form the other primary source of Islamic law, second only to the clear guidances of the Qur'an. However, no statement could be more wrong than to say that the issues that are addressed by Islam are only those that are addressed to explicitly in the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

The reason for this is that the Qur'an and Sunnah provide an Islamic legal framework. Instead of providing a complete set of rigid laws, they provide the basic principles for Islamic law. They further provided us with guidelines and methods to use our minds as a secondary source of Islamic law, that must lean on the general principles and authorities from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

This is true for all aspects of Islamic law, including politics. Whatever methods provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah form an inclusive definition of Islamic politics as opposed to an exclusive one.

The truth however remains that there are certain practices that are associated with democracy that are not completely in line with Islamic principles and ethical guidelines.

For example, the concept of human rights, as it is portrayed today, denotes the idea of complete equality, even if it does not establish equity. It also denotes the acceptance of certain deviances from rules of morality and canons of human nature. Religious freedom and freedom of speech, as 'democracy' portrays it, seem to indicate a total acceptance of all kinds of blasphemies and scandalous utterings. It also seems for some people that to nominate yourself for a post and to campaign for it means making false claims about traits that you never even dreamt of having. For others it is to make fabricate stories about the other parties that are contesting for the same spot. Even more dangerously, the power of money in politics means that the special interests of the rich are more protected than the rights and interests of normal citizens.

So, what are we to do as Muslims? Are we to go against a clear principle of Islamic law that Islamic politics is not restricted to the explicit provisions of the Qur'an and Sunnah there by rejecting Democracy as non-Islamic and a sin? Or are we instead to accept 'Democracy' as it is given to us on a gold plated platter, despite the clear deviations from Islamic teachings?

I believe neither of the above mentioned choices is an option for Muslims. To choose the first way would mean to let our governance go in the end to the hands of by non-Islamic people who have no care what so ever for the teachings of our religion. The second choice, would mean there's no difference between 'Islamic' people who 'love Islam' and those people whom we don't want to be governing us.

What choice are we left with then? As it has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this article, we Muslims have been given clear guidelines that we must follow. What is known as democracy is not a rigid set of rules, but rather a system that targets for the implementation of justice. Democracy can be shaped in accordance to the Islamic teachings. The reason for this is that while democracy is intended to provide the people with the goodness of this world, Islam is the way for the betterment of both this world and the next.

We as Muslims don't have to accept the Western definitions of democratic values. To be given human rights does not be to be given the right to fall below the standards of humanity. To be given religious freedom is not to be given the freedom to wage war against what Islam holds divine. To be given the right of free speech does not have to mean the freedom to utter whatever defamatory thoughts that come to your mind. To run for a political post with all your might is not the same as to run for that post with the might that you don't really have. And for politicians to follow every whim of special interest lobbyists, despite the danger it poses for the country as a whole, is not even a democratic value.

So, no. We don't want an imported version of democracy. We don't want a country where the people are supreme. We want a country where Islam is supreme. We want a country where justice is implemented. We want a political system that respects our values, and allows us to grow as a nation.

Why Won't the Mullahs Be Content With Their Mosques, Damn It!?

Secularism is the fad today, and to call for any religious affiliations within a political organization is completely outdated. We, the young generation, associate religious political movements with tyranny, dictatorships, and loss of human rights. We think religion, whether it be revealed or not, should know its place, and stay in the places of worship. We won't let religion walk through the doors of parliaments, presidential offices, and judge's courts.

It seems that most other religions have accepted this. The Church doesn't mess with what countries do, neither do Rabbis, or Buddhist and Hindu monks. Not usually anyways. Except Muslim scholars, the so-called 'Mullahs', who still believe that Islam has a place with in the operation of the governments of modern countries. For a lot of us who believe in secularism it is rather incredible how the Mullahs are so hotheaded regarding this, and simply won't be content with their mosques.

To be fair, the fear of Mullahs can be said to be for good reason. The image portrayed by the media of Islam is scary enough. For many people of the world, the 9/11 terrorist attacks are synonyms of Islam. And truth be told, the attempts of Muslims to recover their image after the 9/11 attacks remain a gesture - too little, too late.

Worse, every one knows that there are certain countries where Muslims try to implement Islam without having sufficient knowledge of Islamic law, resulting in blundering failures that are in the end nothing more than tyrannies. After all, little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Even worse still, the rise of certain groups of Muslims who believe that the only way to save the Muslim Ummah from the unbelievable lowly state it's in is by waging war against the whole world at large has done the Mullahs, and even Muslims in general, no favor. The result has been a confusion between terrorist groups and Muslim political organizations who want to work through the democratic system and Muslim freedom fighters who took up arms only after having made failed attempts at diplomacy.

Having said all this, what makes Mullahs so adamant in their belief that they don't have to do what the Church and the Rabbis did?

I bet you've heard this enough times already, but Islam is a complete way of life. Sure enough, other religions are also a complete way of life in a sense. I say 'In a sense,' because they focus more on formulating a set moral guidelines, where as Islam has come with a more sophisticated legal framework. It is an uncontested fact that the Islamic state established by the Prophet (PBUH) and later ruled by his rightly guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them) was the first nation in recorded history to have developed such a sophisticated legal system, all of which was based on religious teachings. Muslim scholars have elaborated on matters of constitutional, civil, personal, criminal laws, as well matters related to international relations.

Now, what makes these laws, that were formulated more than a century and a half ago suitable to the modern age that we're living in?

The most important factor that makes Islamic Shariah suitable for the modern age is the fact that it accepts custom, public interest, and in certain matters even individual benefit, as sources of law, or matters taken into consideration in the formulating of the law. Of course, customs and the interest of the public, differ from place to place, and from time to time. Individual benefits differ from person to person. Thus, Islamic law is more flexible than we initially might imagine it to be.

Of course, it must be kept in mind that these sources of law come secondary to the Qur'an and Sunnah. We, as Muslims, believe that the Qur'an is a divine revelation from Allah to the Messenger (PBUH) as a guidance for the whole mankind. The Qur'an is therefore the primary source of Islamic law followed by the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH). And these two primary sources provide the guidelines that we must abide by in following the secondary sources of law. As a matter of fact, there's a whole science around the methods of deriving laws from the texts of both the Qur'an and Sunnah as well as from the secondary sources of Islamic law.

All this aside, there's another simple reason why the Mullahs and the Mullahs' followers like myself believe we simply cannot be content with our Mosques. Because the Qur'an and Sunnah has a complete set of rules, to simply be stuck in our mosques would be to work in accordance to around 25% of what has been revealed. We as Muslims have been ordered to live our whole lives in accordance to 100% of what has been revealed.

To follow Islam is to follow Islam in our every day. To pray in the mosque. To go out to the street and be able to relate to the problems we face there. To have the ability to guide the society. To have the guts to be able to lead the society. That's why the Mullahs won't be content with their mosques, damn it!