Download Islam and Modern Democracy

Islam and Modern Democracy
Author(s): Fauzi M. Najjar
Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr., 1958), pp. 164-180
Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of
Politics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1404926 .
Accessed: 17/06/2011 19:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press and University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
Islam and Modern Democracy
by Fauzi M. Najjar
I
XN OTSINCE the tenth centuryhas Islam been confronted
with a greater challenge of self-examination than in the
first half of the twentieth century. During its early expansion Islam came into contact with Greek science and philosophy.
Its failure to adapt itself to Greek science and philosophy,and to
integrate Greek methods and teachings into its own, determined
the character of subsequent Islamic thought and institutions. Between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries, Islamic society lapsed
into scientific and cultural stagnation, accompanied by political
corruption and social disorganization. The Muslims transmitted
Greek science and philosophy to Europe without having been influenced by it to any great degree. Whereas Western Europe accepted the Greek heritage and tried to harmonizeit with Christian
teachings, the Muslim world remained essentially unaffected.
Assuming a negative attitude, it finally rejected Greek thought
and learning as heretical and, in self-defense,returned to literalism and orthodoxy. Ever since, Islam has been dominated by the
theology of its medieval ulama or doctors of Islamic Law.
Once again the civilization of Europe and the West confronts
the world of Islam with the challenge of its science, technologies,
and political and social ideologies. The future of Islam will undoubtedly depend upon the kind of responseit will make. There
is a heartening indication that Muslim society is beginning to
awake to the importance of reform. The Muslim states at the
same time are seeking to assert themselves on an equal footing
with the rest of the world. They seem to realize, vaguely, that
their own institutionsare no more adequate for this age and that
nothing short of complete transformationand reorganizationare
sufficientto secure for them a place in the sun. In the new states
a frantic movement for modernizationis in process, the scope of
which cannot yet be measured. The urgent mood is dictated by
the fact that the Muslims have to accomplish overnight what the
164
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
165
West achieved in a century if they want to benefit from Western
progress.
This is a healthy realizationbut it is also a source of dislocation
for the reason that the beliefs, values and attitudes of a society
cannot be so easily replaced and its social and political institutions
transformedwithout resultant tension and conflict. The Muslim
people are sensitive to the clash of their values and beliefs with
those of a "new" and alien systemfounded upon differentreligious
and cultural experiences. There is a strong likelihood that, under
pressuresfrom the West, Muslim society might either recoil from
the task of readjustingitself to modern thought and withdraw into
its shell, or overcompensate,as it were, by discardingits habits and
systems of thought completely in order to adopt new ideas and
espouse 'alien' and extremistideologies.
Islam is undergoing especially serious change in the area of
governmental organization. For good or evil most Muslim states
are bent on adopting a Westerntype of democracy. Colonizedand
ruled for a long time by either Great Britain or France, Muslim
countrieswere geared into a Westernpattern of political organization.1 The practical experience of these states in moder democratic government inevitably raises the question of the compatibility of moder democracywith the teachings of Islam. In other
words, is it possiblefor a truly Islamic state to be truly democratic?
Will Muslim nations be able to work out a synthesisof democratic
ideals and Islamic dogmas in a way that will give them progress
and stability? What in the long run might be the implicationsof
a democratic regime for Islamic culture and thought? Will Muslims be able to give up their political, economic and social institutions without discardingthe religious?2 The future of Islam probably depends upon the manner in which it reformulatesits teachings and reorganizesits institutions. The formal adoption or uncritical superimpositionof a Western ideology or form of government, can result only in confusion, conflict, and tension unless accompanied and sustainedby a restatementin moder terms of the
teachingsof Islam by Muslim intellectuals.
1In the Arab World Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt (until 1952) have adopted
a British-type constitutional monarchy, whereas Syria and Lebanon are republics
after the French pattern.
2 Orthodox theologians and conservative thinkers accused
Mustapha Kemal
of undermining Islam by introducing Western democracy into Turkey.
166
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
The purpose of this article is to examine the basic teachings
and institutionsof Islam and show to what extent they are compatible with the essentialteachings and basic assumptionsof Western democracy. The discussionis mainly concerned with Islam as
a religion and as a social philosophy. Historical and accidental
conditions, such as literacy, industrial development,and economic
well-being, no matter how relevant they are to the working of a
democracy in any society, are neglected for what is universally
and theoreticallyIslam. This study is limited to basic tenets and
broad assumptionsby design, with the realizationthat an exhaustive
and comprehensive comparison is beyond the scope of a brief
article.
II
Two major concepts are analyzed for purposesof comparison:
the concept of man and the theory of the state. Under these broad
categories,notions such as sovereignty,authority,legislation,citizenship, and human rights will of course be focal points of discussion.
Islamic Theory of the State: Some may considerit impertinent
to outline an Islamic theory of state in view of the fact that no pure
Islamic state has ever existed or will ever exist. The moder
"Islamic states" are no more than Western-typepolitical organizations inhabited by Muslims. While political forms were either imposed by a Western power and maintained by an enlightenedminority, most Muslim citizens still think and react in terms of rigid
orthodox teachings. Since in a democracy it is the opinion and
attitudes of the masses that prevail, the lines along which their
minds operate become highly relevant. This is not to forget that
a considerablesection of the educated Muslimsstill nurturein their
hearts the dream of an Islamic Empire, united and powerful,
capable of restoringthe early glory of Islam. Although not all of
them are members of "Muslim Brotherhoods,"many have taken
part in the activitiesof such groups which call for a revival of pure
Islam and the establishment of an Islamic state to include all
"Believers." Furthermore, only in contradistinctionto the ideal
type of the Islamic state can one understandthe possibilitiesand
appreciatethe implicationsof adapting a moder democraticform
of governmentto an Islamic society.
When Muhammad the Prophet deliveredthe message of Islam
to the Arabs of the Peninsula,he addressedhimself to a number of
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
167
tribes whose social organizationwas centeredaround a tribal chief,
and whose loyalties did not extend beyond the immediate group.
The hardshipsof the desertmade life severe; tribal feuds, trafficin
slavery, and the worship of idols were common. In brief, broader
social solidarityand national unity were lacking. To create order
out of chaos a universallaw was needed; but for such a law to be
observed in a community where "law was the will of the strong
and cunning, it had to derive its sanction from an authorityhigher
than that of man or the chief of a tribe. Hence the Shari'a the
Sacred Law of Islam which combines faith in one God with a
law regulating the affairs of everyday life was "revealed"to the
Prophet. Although the Shari'a is a universallaw revealed,through
the Prophet, to all mankind, there was somethingabout it that was
characteristicallyArab.3
As such, Islam envisaged a politico-religious community'umma- governed by the Revealed Law. The Prophet referred
to the Believers as "my community," 'ummati, thus infusing the
Arabs not only with a religious purpose but also with a sense of
national unity. With the advent of Islam, a nation was born.
As a divinely-revealedlaw, valid for all times and all people,
the Shari'a only ensures observancebut it also guaranteesperfection. At the same time a law and a faith, it ensuresjustice in this
world and salvation in the next. In this elaborate system, where
the Law regulatesin minute details every aspect of human life, including economic transactions,marriage and divorce, charity and
the rituals of prayer, there can be no distinctionbetween what we
call the religious or spiritual and the political or temporal. There
can be no separationbetween church and state because there is no
church and because the community comes into being by virtue of
a common faith this is its raison d'etre. The 'umma is also
called 'ummat Allah or 'ummat Muhammad. The Islamic state
is, therefore,a theocracy governed, not by a pope or a priesthood,
but by the Law of God, a law that is valid, true and final.4 There
is no human activity that is not religiouslyrelevant.
That it is practically impossible to separate what is spiritual
from what is temporal may also be inferred from the Muslim
denial of the notion of a law of nature or their failure to make a
3 Sir T. W. Arnold, The Caliphate (Oxford, 1924), p. 17.
4 Louis Gardet, La Cite Musulmane
(Paris, 1954), p. 27.
168
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
distinction between natural law and divine law: a traditional distinction made by Western Christendomwhich lies at the core of
St. Thomas' political philosophy.5 The denial of natural law is
a denial of the principle of natural causation, the possibility of
science, and human freedom and responsibility,inasmuch as every
action in nature and man must be explained in terms of divine
will.6 The law of the Koran or the law of God becomes man's
only guide to what is good or bad, possible or impossible.7 The
Islamic Law does not express or identify the good or the bad, it
creates it. What the Koran says is good or bad is a matter of
command, 'amr, or decree. God issued certain commandsnot because they were right but what God commandedwas right because
He commanded it. The distinction is a legal one. Individual
choice is limited to doing the prescribedgood and being rewarded
or doing the bad and being punished. Individual moral responsibility and individual freedom, so dear to modem democracy, are
completelynegated. True freedom is realizedin obeying the Law.8
The Sacred Law is the basis for all legislation,laid down once
and for all. Man can only apply this universaland immutableLaw
to particular situations. Sovereigntyresides in the Almighty; He
is the source of authority and the fountainhead of legislation. It
is not only that all authoritycomes from God, but that there is no
other authority; God, in his inaccessibletranscendence,alone governs.9 In a sense, authority cannot be delegated, a Caliph ruling
in the name of God or accordingto His Laws, commandsabsolute
obedience. "Obedience to the ruler is obedience to God." God
is infinitely just, and since whatever happens is an expressionof
His will, the community cannot even refuse obedience to a bad
ruler. An important hadith (tradition) of the Prophet states:
Speaknot ill of rulers,for if they do well, theirsis a rewardand
5 Ibid., p. 36.
6 Recurrence and
regularity in nature are explained in terms of the "custom
of God," 'ddat Allah.
7 An eminent Pakistani scholar maintains that, as a result of human weakness, man cannot comprehend what is good or bad without being guided by
a Prophet; Asaf A. A. Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law (Oxford,
1949), p. 15.
8 This is also true in a democracy with the essential difference that in a
democracy, we obey laws of our own making.
9 Rashid Rida, al-Khilafa wal-Imdma al-'Uzmd (The Caliphate or the
Supreme Imamate) (Cairo, 1922), p. 27. Cf. Koran, 6, 57.
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
169
you owe them thanks; and, if they do ill, the burden of sin is
theirs, and your duty is patience. They are the means of God's
punishment by which He punishes whomsoever He will. Do not
anticipate the punishment of God by hastiness and anger, anticipate it by humility and supplication.10
Omar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph, said: "God administers
more by the ruler than by the Koran, because people fear immediate punishment more than they fear that of the hereafter."
In this scheme of things, human legislation becomes unnecessary
and superfluous. "The state," as Professor Gibb put it, "should be
only the public exponent of Islamic Ideology, ensuring the security
and well-being of the Muslim peoples, and enforcing the Law of
Islam but itself subject to that law; and its authority derives wholly
from the degree to which it is considered to do so."'l The new
Republic of Pakistan, a nation that owes its separate existence to
Islam, has included in its constitution a clause to the effect that
any legislation which is not in conformity with the Koran and the
Sunna (Muhammadan Traditions) will be considered null and
void. In Article three of its 1950 constitution, Syria declared that
"Islamic Law shall be the main source of legislation." Countries
like Saudi Arabia and Yemen rigidly apply the Koranic Law. So
long as the Prophet lived, the state was the church: the state safeguarded and expanded the area of the faith and took care of the
affairs of the Believers. As soon as the Prophet died, divine revelation ceased, and the state was restricted to administration. The
Caliph, the successor to the Prophet, was entrusted with the function of applying the Law. He was an executive with no authority
in doctrinal matters. In an ideal Islamic state, legislation is fused
with judicial interpretation and both are intertwined with administration.
Citizenship and Individual Rights in the Islamic State. It
necessarily follows that all Muslims are members of the Islamic
state. Citizenship is a matter of faith in a community where religion and the nation are identical.12 Recently, a Pakistani political
10 Ibn al-Tiktaka: al-Fakhri on the systems of government and the Muslim
dynasties, trans. by C. E. J. Whiting (London, 1947), p. 30.
11 Sir H. A. R. Gibb, "Social Reform Factor X, The Search for an Islamic
Democracy," The Atlantic Monthly, October, 1956, p. 138.
12 "Although we are
apt to think of Islam as a religion," said Professor
D. S. Margoliouth, "it is probable that the Prophet thought of it rather as
a nation."
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
170
scientist wrote that "Islam enjoins that the best in a community
should rule and the best only be judged on Islamic principlesaccording to their faith and deeds. Only on this criterionof affinity
of belief or of action does Islam recognize the categorizationof
human beings- not on birth, language, appearanceor geographic
nearness."13 Citizenship is identical with religious belief. The
Western concept of citizenship according to which followers of
different religions may still be equal in rights and duties owing
loyalty to the same political organization,is alien to Islamic theory.
The citizen (believer) owes his loyalty primarily to Islam itself,
and after Islam to his own immediate social group. No Jew or
Christian can be a citizen of an Islamic state.14 Jews and Christians, or the "People of the Book" as the Muslims call them, could
live within an Islamic state but could take no active part in its
civil and political life on terms of equality. Jews and Christians
living in an Islamic state had to pay a tax, Jizya, and sign a treaty,
dhimma, in which they renounced certain rights and in return
enjoyed the practice of their religion and their customs. Their life
and propertywere also guaranteedthem at the price of "permanent
inequality."15They were not even "second-classcitizens" (a phrase
used by Jews, ironicallyenough, with referenceto Arabs still living
in Israel), because they had no inherentrights and were not allowed to performany duties. Their "presence"within an Islamic state
was simply granted them by Muslim rulersas an act of hospitality.
It is probably correct to call them "permanentguests."16
Within the Islamic state, which theoreticallyincludes all Muslims whereverthey are, the Believersare equal in rights and duties,
not because they are human beings but just because they are believers. "The Believers are brothers,"says the Koran. By nature
men are unequal; they acquire their equality by submitting to
God's will, and are thus reduced to the same level. Man is the
slave of God, and as such he cannot claim any superiority.
Kulluna 'abidul-Allah ("we are all God's slaves") is a currentre13 Kemal A. Faruki, Islamic Constitution
(Karachi, 1952), p. 57.
Jews and Christians were the only religious groups allowed by Islam to
maintain their own beliefs and practices if they chose to, on the grounds that
they believed in the one God and had the "book." Others were given the
choice of either conversion or the sword.
15 Gustav E. von
Grunebaum, Medieval Islam, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1954),
p. 179.
16 Gardet, op. cit., p. 58.
14
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
171
tort in Muslim countries to any display of superiorityor exercise
of discrimination. Literally, "Islam" means submissionto the will
of God. This completesurrenderis expressedin the ritual of prayer
which involves the prostrationof the whole body five time a day.
It is supposed to remind man of his humble origin and his utter
dependence on Allah. It certainly deprives him of independent
judgment, free will, and self-reliance. Combinedwith the doctrine
of the absolute and unqualifiedomnipotenceof God, it leaves man
helplessly convinced of the superfluity of his individual initiative
and responsibility,since what is going to happen is decreedby God
and there is no reversal of His will. Ontologically, man has no
existence; as a human being he is nothing; he acquireshis dignity
through submissionto Allah.
Despite this limited conception of "juridical equality," Islam
can undoubtedly boast of an egalitarianismwhich is absent in all
other religious systems. Members of the Islamic community, including the Caliph himself, are equal before the Sacred Law and
equally subject to it. "No Muslim," said Rashid Rida, "no matter
how high his rank in Islam is, has over another, no matter how
low that even he be, any right except that of counsellingand guidance."'7 Even in doctrinal matters, the understandingor interpretation of the Koranic teachings is as much the prerogativeof
the common man as it is that of the ulama or the Caliph. Priesthood in Islam is the "priesthoodof the believers." No organized
body has a monopoly in doctrinal matters. In fact, ijtihad or the
exercise of individual judgment came to mean the judgment of the
learned. However, the fear that the Islamic Law might be interpreted to mean different things to different people at the same
time, led to the "closingof the door of ijtihad" and, consequently,
to ossificationand decadence.
The Caliph or the head of governmentis an executive or administratorwhose authorityis derived from his faithful application
of the Law. Obedience is due him only if he properlyadministers
the Law: it is actually obedienceto the Law and not to the man.18
Consequently,a ruler can be deposedby his subjectswheneverthey
judge that he is deviating from the right path. "No obedience to
17
Rida, op. cit., p. 124.
18 Ibid., p. 123. This is true of most Muslim sects
except the Shi'ites who
maintain that the Imam receives revelation directly from God and alone has
the right to interpret the Koran and the Traditions.
172
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
those who disobey God," so goes a famous Tradition of the
Prophet.19
The superiorityof Muslims over non-Muslims is expressedin
certain injunctionsand legal interpretations.For example, a Muslim male may marry a Christianor a Jewish female, but no Muslim female may marry a non-Muslim.20 No non-Muslim may inherit from a Muslim even if the latter is a slave.21 According to
Abu Hanifa, the premeditated murder of a "protege" would be
severely punished but not by death, because the life of a Muslim
is more valuable than that of a non-Muslim.22
The same kind of superiorityis manifestedvis-a-viswomen and
slaves. Theoretically, Islam recognizes the possible existence of
slavery, but the only personsthat could legally be enslaved are the
unbelieverscapturedin hostile territory. Under no condition could
a Muslim be enslaved. Slaves were sold, inherited, or given as
gifts. A master could marryhis female slave but he had to free her
first. A slave could not own or inherit any property. Morally, as
well as physically,he is regarded as an inferior being - a chattel.
The life of a free man cannot be exacted for that of a slave just
as it cannot be exacted for that of a Jew or a Christian. It is reported that Ali, the fourth Caliph and son-in-law of the Prophet
declared: "It is the practice in Islam that no Muslim is slain for
a protected non-Muslim and no free man for a slave."23
Although the status of women was raised to a higher level than
it had been in pre-Islamictimes, women in Islam remain inferior
to men.24 Men are inherently superior in "mental ability" and
"good counsel"; they have the right of command and leadership,
"have a larger share of inheritance, and discretionin the matter
of divorce." Accordingly,the Mufti of Egypt two years ago, issued
a fatwah, a legal interpretationwhich declared that women can
have no right to vote or be elected to parliaments.25
19 It is difficult to reconcile this with the Tradition mentioned on page 168
which implies that obedience is the duty of the Believer no matter what
the rulers do. Cf. Rida, op. cit., p. 41.
20 Reuben Levy, The Social Structure of Islam (Cambridge [England],
1957), p. 103.
21 Ibid., p. 81.
22
Gardet, op. cit., p. 64.
23
Levy, op. cit., p. 78.
24 Koran, 4, 38.
25However, women did vote in the 1957 national election in Egypt, and
two women were elected to Parliament, The New York Times, July 16, 1957.
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
173
Within such a system, man cannot be a free agent responsible
for his deeds. God alone is the free agent and the creatorof human
acts.26 Man is only assigned a nominal role in the sense that he
appropriates or "acquires" these acts by serving as a mould-qalab -
or a receptacle -
mahal -
for them. If God is the cre-
ator of all human acts, how can man be at all responsible? This
most important question was asked by the Mu'tazilites, who are
generally accepted as the exponents of reason and free will in
Islam. However, Mu'tazilite "rationalism"is tempered by theological motives, and their influence, on the whole, remains insignificant. In Islam the individual'srights and freedomsare those
prescribedby the law; he can only choose to obey or disobey. The
Western notidn of individual freedom and natural right, which is
limited only by the freedom of others, is alien to Muslim theory.
The concept of human responsibility,implied in the maxim "man
is the creator of his own deeds," cannot be easily reconciled with
the Koranic theme of an omnipotent and omniscient creator of
the universe.
III
Any discussion of moder democracy runs into the difficulty
of having to deal with more than one theory of democracy. American constitutional democracy differs from parliamentarydemocracy in Britain and both are at odds with the French concept of
democracy. While American and British democratic theory assumes the existence and priority of independent and voluntary associations within society and emphasizesthe secondaryand instrumental characterof the state, French theory has generallyasserted
the sovereignty of the nation and denied any other authority.27
However, French democracy has so much in common with the
Anglo-Americandemocracy that for the sake of comparisonit is
permissibleto talk of a Western "modern democracy."
In contrast to the Islamic theory of the state, which makes no
distinctionbetween religion and the community on the one hand,
and between the community and the state on the other, modern
democratic theory, especially in Britain and the United States,
distinguishessharply between the society as a conglomerationof
voluntary associations,and the state as an agent to promote co26
Gardet, op. cit., p. 70.
27A. D. Lindsay, The Modern Democratic State (London, 1955), p. 120
174
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
operation and spontaneous initiative among those associations.
The function of the state is to protect individualrightsand promote
human freedoms, and not to act as an exponent of a religious
dogma or a certain ideology. Characteristicof this Westerndemocracy is the acceptance of the diversityof opinions and associations
within society. With this goes the recognition that no one has a
monopoly on truth and the right of opposition. "Moder democracy," says Lindsay, "stands or falls with the right of discussion
and with the existence of recognized opposition." In a theocracy
opposition is an act of heresy. Furthermore,moder democracy
believes in the separation of powers as a guarantee against tyranny.28 In Islam legislation, administration,and adjudicationare
fused in one office.29
Underlying the democratic concept of state and society is the
belief in human equality and the dignity of the individual. Men
share a certain moral equality of rights which overshadowstheir
natural inequality. "Men are born free and equal in respect of
their rights." Freedom of discussion,equality before the law, and
equality of opportunityare the concrete expressionsof man's natural rights. That there are certain "inalienablerights" which belong to men as men, and not as "believers"or membersof certain
associations, remains the cardinal point of Western democracy.
The expression"freedomunder law" combinesthe belief in natural
human rights with the belief that power must be subject to certain
moral limitations. Individual rights are superior to what may be
thought to be the rights of state or of society.
The belief in human equality produced the demand for adult
suffrage and logically led to the assertionthat "power is vested in
and consequentlyderived from the people." "Governmentby consent" implies a high degree of popular control. The absolute
sovereignty of God and the immutability of the Sacred Law in
Islam are paralleled in modern democracy by the sovereigntyof
the people and the flexibilityof legislation.
With its emphasis on the separation of church and state,
especially in France and the United States, and its advocacy of
religioustolerationand the recognitionof diversesects whose func28 The French
understanding of the separation of powers is quite different
from, if not completely opposed to, the American practice.
29
Contemporary examples are Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
175
tion is distinguishedfrom the function of the body politic as such,
modem democracy is essentially secular. Historically, secularization in the West precededdemocratization.
Islam has very little in common with modem democracy. It is
doubtful whether the world of Islam can become democraticwithout undergoinga seriousreformationof its basic principles.I am not
saying that Islam should undergo this change; what I am saying is
that if Muslims want to adopt a democraticform of government,
they must first realize that Islam is essentiallyincompatible with
modem democracy and that any adjustment that is not based on
a sound and intelligent reinterpretationof Islam in terms of modem thought will be made at the expense either of Islam or democracy. So far, experimentsin democracyin Muslim countriestend
to corroboratethis contention.30"Industrialization"and "economic
development"are insufficientto transform Muslim countries into
working democraciesunlessthe Islamic outlook on man and nature
is modified. A true Muslim will have very serious difficultiesresolving the conflict between his loyalty to the Koran and his belief
in democracy. The absolute sovereigntyof God cannot be reconciled with the sovereigntyof man, unless politics and religion are
recognizedas mattersfalling into separatespheres. No one realized
the importance and necessity of a separationbetween church and
state as a prerequisitefor democracyin an Islamic state as well as
Mustapha Kemal. When Ataturk declared Turkey the first "Islamic" Republic, he must have used the form to please the orthodox or underminetheir opposition,because he proceededto transform Turkey into a modern secular democracy,replacing the traditional Islamic principlesof state and law with modem European
laws. In 1928, the Shari'a as a source of legislationwas completely
discarded from the Turkish constitution and Turkey started on
the road to modernismand democracy.31
30
Note the significant demand for a "controlled" and "guided" democracy
in Pakistan and Indonesia respectively.
31 In response to recent claims by the orthodox that Turkey should restore
the Shari'a as a source of legislation, President Bayar said: "We must never
give reaction a chance to return to Turkey." He was supported by the
Opposition leader, Ismat Inonu. Time, June 24, 1957. However, the Turkish
Government has found it feasible to encourage the revival of Islamic religious
sentiment as a check to Communism or as a means for political ends. Cf.
Howard A. Reed, "Secularism and Islam in Turkish Politics," Current
History, Vol. 32, No. 190, (June 1957), pp. 333-38.
176
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
IV
The last few decades have witnessed a serious effort on the
part of Muslim intellectualsto reconcileIslam with modem science
and democracy. With very few exceptions, these attempts have
not been very profound and have contributed nothing or very
little to an understandingof the real issuesat stake. They are more
of the nature of mere assertionsof the "compatibility"of Islam
with modem thought and, in most cases, apologetic. Typical are
statementslike these: "Democracyis Islam itself"; "Islam is democratic"; or "Islam does not need Westernthought, it has the seeds
for all reform." Reading this kind of literature,one gets the feeling that democracy is on trial before the tribunal of Islam with
the latter providing theological justification for its claims. The
issue of individual dignity and freedom, natural equality, and
natural rights, has been very rarely and superficiallytouched upon.
The most eloquent of modem reformists,Sir Muhammed Iqbal,
a Muslim Indian, is so full of contradictionsthat both the reformists and the reactionariescan quote him to support their views.
As if sufferingfrom an intellectualschizophrenia,he calls upon the
Muslims to exercise their individual judgment and assert their individual rights on the one hand, and scoffs on the other, at "Western Republicanism,"condemns democracy,and ultimatelylooks to
a dictator-saviorto rescue society.32
This second position finds support among other Indian Muslims as well as among Muslims in the Arab world and Indonesia.
Sayyid Abu-l-'Ala' Mawdudi, now a leader in the new Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, has remarkedthat his country should have
"none of this moder European or American democracy,this Bolshevik regimentation, this fascist apotheosis, this Turkish revolt
from Islam; the only state for Muslims . . . is the Islamic Theoc-
racy."33 In recent years the call for a theocracy has been limited
to the demand that the Koran and the Traditionsform the source
of legislation in an Islamic state. With the death of Muhammad
Rashid Rida of Egypt, no Muslim thinker of any repute has agitated for the restorationof the Caliphate- the real political ideal
of Islam, with the exception of certain extreme members of the
Muslim Brotherhood.
32 W. C.
Smith, Modern Islam in India, A Social Analysis, rev. ed.
(London, 1947), pp. 110-111, 133.
SaIbid., p. 149.
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
177
Extreme reactionaries and fanatics aside, there are two main
groups of Muslim thinkers who have tried to tackle this problem
with daring and sincerity: the first approaches Islam from the
values of Western democracy; the second approaches modern democracy from an Islamic viewpoint. Here it would be impossible
and even unnecessary to review all the arguments of these two
groups, especially since most of them echo one another.
The first group takes the position that Islam is essentially a
faith - risala - and not a social system or a form of government,
and that the Prophet did not establish a political regime and was
not a chief of state. His leadership was purely religious and not
political. "It is a prophecy and not a political regime - mulk,"
so goes a famous tradition. The most daring of these modernists
are two Egyptian ulama from the Azhar: Ali Abd al-Rasik34 and
Khalid Muhammad Khalid.35 Both argue that the Prophet did
not intend to establish a political regime, and they attack the Caliphate as an innovation which has no foundation in true Islam. It
was in the interest of the Sultans and those in power to propagate
this myth among the people in order to protect and safeguard their
authority.36 The Caliphate brought nothing but disaster to Islam
and the Muslims and has been a source of evil and corruption.
Restoration of the Caliphate or any form of theocracy, writes
Muhammad Khalid in a Voltairean vein, means "a relapse to
autocratic rule."37 He quotes liberal Western thinkers to buttress
his points.
What these two men are saying is that reform in Islam is contingent upon separating politics from religion and that true Islam
is adaptable to a modern system of government if stripped of historical and stultifying traditions. Political matters should be managed by the people in accordance with the conditions of the time.
Islam would condone any form of government if it promotes the
general well-being.38 In spite of their radicalism the "liberals" do
not contemplate a break with the past. To that extent, and to the
extent that historically and doctrinally their arguments can be easily
34 Islam and the Principles of Government
(Cairo, 1925).
5 From Here We Start, 7th ed. (Cairo, 1954).
3a Rasik, op. cit., p. 102.
37 Khalid, op. cit., p. 134.
38 Ibid., p. 142. This does not mean that Islam is
equally tolerant of
communism or fascism.
178
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
undermined, their case is weakened. However, they may be commended for the courage with which they urge Muslims to reexamine their institutions and modes of thought and open their
minds to Western progress and civilization.
The second group is more consistent, though less liberal, inasmuch as it recognizes the principle of the sovereignty of God and
the Shari'a as the source of legislation, but it seeks to harmonize
them with modern progress. To this school of thought, democracy
presents no challenge to Islam because "Islam is democratic."39
It maintains that the principle of popular sovereignty is compatible
with the sovereignty of God, on the grounds that the former is only
"political sovereignty" whereas God's is the "true" sovereignty.40
Since Islam is the true religion, its principles constitute the fundamentals of true sovereignty. There is no contradiction between the
contention that the nation is the source of authority and the doctrine that the Koran and the Traditions are the source of legislation, because it is the nation which understands them and applies
them to existing conditions.41 Partially convinced of the value of
modem democracy but afraid to compromise Islam, these conservative modernists argue in circles. The implication of their arguments is obvious: democracy is consistent with Islam because the
citizens are good Muslims who accept the Shari'a as the constitution
for society. The possibility that the popular will might want something opposed to the Shari'a, has not been squarely faced.
The concept of ijma' (consensus) in Islam has been used by the
"modernists" to demonstrate its democratic character. The origin
of the notion is a frequently quoted tradition in which the Prophet
says: "never will my community be united in an error." Another
famous tradition states that "what is good, is what the Muslims
say it is."42 The ijma' is considered by Sunni Islam as the fourth
major source of legislation, of course, as long as the decision is not
opposed to the Shari'a.43 Apart from the fact that the authenticity
of these traditions may be legitimately questioned, Muslim theolo39 Muhammad 'Abdu urged the pursuit of modern thought, confident that
in the last resort it could not undermine but only confirm the religious truth
of Islam.
40Abbas M. al-Aqqad, Democracy in Islam (Arabic) (Cairo, 1952), pp.
62-63.
41 Ibid., p. 65.
42Ibid., p. 109.
43Gardet, op. cit., p. 120.
ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY
179
gians have not, to this day, agreed on what Muhammad meant by
'my community,' nor on which matters ijma' is accepted. Did he
mean by 'my community' his immediate Companions, the ulama,
"the best among you," or did he include every single believer?44
Is ijma' authoritative in religious as well as in political matters?
Can we separate the two? When the Companions wanted to choose
a successor to the Prophet, they did not put the matter to popular
election, but rather chose one from amongst themselves to whom
the people offered fealty - bi'at. Beginning with the Umayyads in
661 A.D., consultation was abandoned and succession to the Caliphate became hereditary. On the doctrinal level, the ulama discarded ijma' and warned against ijtihad, individual judgment.
No matter what the historical fortunes of ijma' have been, there
is no doubt that the revival of such a notion will contribute to the
reform of Muslim structures. If we accept the radical opinion of
certain legists that in the case of conflict between ijma' and the
scriptures, it is the latter that have to be abrogated or interpreted,45
we realize the revolutionary implications of such a doctrine. However, the danger that the liberal use of ijma' might pave the way
for a thorough overhauling of the Shari'a, and ultimately its nullification, has not escaped the keen intelligence of the ulama and
moderate reformers. According to the Pakistani constitution, legislation (ijma') may be abrogated if it is not in conformity with
the Koran and the Sunna.
Moderate reformers have also capitalized on the concept of
equality and brotherhood in Islam. "Islam," said Humayun, "realized the concept of equality both in theory and in practice so far
as Muslims are concerned."46 Islam also "raised the dignity and
status of the individual" by doing away with the priestly class.47
Women are granted the right of holding property; and Muslims
can intermarry irrespective of class or color.48 These and similar
assertions abound in current Islamic literature. The implications
of the "priesthood of all believers" in terms of individual dignity
44The Hanbalite school rejected ijma' as invalid after the first genera.
tion of the Companions of the Prophet, and Qiyds, analogy, as a legal
method. The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia followed the Hanbalites in rejecting
ijma'. H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism (London, 1949), pp. 170-171.
45 Ali Abd al-Razik, Consensus in the Islamic Shari'a
(Cairo 1947), p. 96.
4Kabir Hamayun, Science, Democracy, and Islam (London, 1955), p. 20.
47Ibid., p. 21.
48Ibid.,
p. 22.
180
THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
and equality have not yet been worked out into a system comparable to Puritan theory.
V
"The forces which shaped the religious attitude of Muslims in
the past," says ProfessorGibb, "have lost none of their power."
If it is true that the compulsionof tradition has not lost its force,
and the evidence is in favor of this contention,the prospects,in any
immediate future, for a sound democraticlife in Muslim states are
rather slim. In spite of the fact that a number of these states have
adopted a democratic form of government and, under pressures
from the West, are trying to reform their institutions,it remains
true that you cannot change institutionswithout having changed
the nature of men, because, as somebody put it, "that unchanged
nature will soon resurrectthose institutions."
One may also argue that institutionsmake men, and therefore
if Muslim states or statesmen want to educate their people for
democracy, they must also educate them in democracy. By exercising the right to vote the individual becomes conscious of his
power and dignity. This is a long and arduousprocess,and unless
accompanied by an intelligent restatementof the Sacred Law in
moder terms, it will defeat its purpose. There already are signs
of impatience and skepticism among Muslim intellectuals about
the workabilityof democracyin Muslim states. This is also partly
due to their disappointmentwith the "democratic"states of the
West. The danger is that democracywill be discreditedfor reasons
unrelatedto the truth of its teachingsor the validity of its principles.
The Western challenge to the Muslim world has to be understood not in terms of industrialdevelopment,economic progressor
military power. It has to be understood,and can only be met, in
terms of the principles, values, ideas and the spirit that are the
bases of Westernprogressand civilization.