Democracy started as an experiment over 2000 years ago in Athens. Today unsubstantiated proclamations such as ‘democracies never go to war’ and ‘all problems can only be resolved through democratic means‘ have made democracy the default universal system of governance with dictatorship being presented as the evil alternative to Democracy.
Whilst the Greek philosophers laid down the original blueprint for democracy it was the renaissance in Europe in the 17th century that brought democracy into the mainstream. Modernist thinkers and philosophers contested the view of the world according to the established Church against that of reason and logic. A bitter conflict eventually led to the removal of the Church as a source of governance and authority. Secularism become established as the Aqeeda (foundation) of democracy, legislative sovereignty of man over ‘Heavenly laws’. Over time democracies, without much thought, came to be viewed as the best, even the only model of governance and accountability. It is viewed as such because not only can the people vote out a government after 4/5 years if they don’t like them, Democracies have also instilled numerous checks and balances throughout the various apparatus of government so that it is primarily accountable to the people, with the motto of Democracy being, ‘Rule of the people, by the people, for the people’.
The manipulation of legislation by lobbyists in the US, the MPs expenses scandals in the UK, the banks’ bail-out, unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a widespread opinion of politics being dominated by self-serving politicians has today exposed the fallacy of such accountable governance in the cradles of modern civilisations, showing that they are primarily accountable to big business rather than the people.
Whilst Islam is diametrically opposed to the sovereignty of man over God’s laws, Islam has however, built in and established rigorous measures of accountability.
The rule of law in Islam is built upon the Qur’an and Sunnah (method of the Prophet). When the Muslim ruler, Khaleefah is appointed, it is therefore a contract based upon the implementation of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Any deviation from this will result in the failure of the contractual conditions and warrants the the raising of a judicial case against the Khaleefah, which can even eventually lead to his removal.
Holding the Khaleefah accountable is central to Islamic politics and a number of styles and means have been outlined by the Islamic evidences – three of these are:
Mahkamat ul mudhalim (Court of Unjust Acts)- This is an independent high court presided over by the most eminent and qualified judges (qudaa’ al muzalim). It has the power to remove any official of state regardless of their role or rank, including, most importantly, the Khaleefah if he persists in pursuing a path that lies outside of the terms of his Bay’ah. Ordinary citizens who have a complaint against the state can register it with the Court.pa lottery
Political Parties – In addition to the institutionalised mechanisms of accountability, Islam also ordered the establishment of political parties. Political parties in the Khilafah are established primarily to account the Khaleefah and his government. Their task is to safeguard the thoughts of Islam in society and to ensure the government does not deviate from the implementation of Islam. The right of the Khilafah’s citizens to establish political parties is established from the Qur’an itself.
Majlis al-Ummah or Ummah’s Council - Islam has recommended consultation (Shoorah), as a result in the early part of Islamic history an Ummah’s council (an elected consultative body) become enshrined as the model to account the ruler and government officials. The Majlis al-Ummah or Ummah’s Council:
- is an elected council whose members can be Muslim, non-Muslim, men or women
- acts as a counterbalance to the executive powers of the Khaleefah.
- members can voice political opinions freely without fear of imprisonment or rebuke.
With every democratic failure political apathy is growing in the west. General elections are seeing fewer people voting (apart from this years General Election due to it being turned into an ‘X Factor’ election via the TV debates) especially young people and growing individualism among society is leading people to ignore the problems facing their communities and wider society.
Islam not only obliged political parties with the task of enjoining Ma’aruf (Good) and forbidding Munkar (Evil) but also individuals.
Demonstration against Mubarak of Egypt after Israel’s massacare on Gaza
The Prophet (saw) said: “By Him in whose hand is my soul, you must enjoin the Ma’aruf and forbid the Munkar, otherwise Allah will be about to send His punishment upon you. And then if you pray to Him (to ask Him), he would not answer you.” (Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Huzayfah).
Islam described the importance of accounting the tyrant ruler even if it led to death. The Prophet (saw) said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood up to an oppressive ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
Therefore the rule of Khilafah is neither democratic nor dictatorship. Nevertheless Islam has rigorous accounting mechanisms to ensure the divine rules are applied, justice is upheld and the affairs of the people are looked after.
Good article but could be made better if evidences for the institutions of accountability of the hkaleefah were provided i.e. evidence for political party, majlis as shura etc
Islam dislikes democracy because Islam cannot allow opposition except wthin confines prescribed by Islam. It cannot enter into truly free political discussion for this reason. The country which is ruled by Islam is thereby the fiefdom of a religion. A country ruled by a class of people who claim to have the correct interpretation of a Book will inevitably become a religious tyrrany. How is it that there is not a single Moslem country where true justice exists? How is it that the reaction of Muslims to opposition, even within the faith, is always violence. How is that Muslims are so obsessed with the West when many Moslem countries are behaving in such a disgraceful fashion? Where is the Moslem protest against the sodomy happening in Iran jails? Where are th street procession against the Moslem-on-Moslem killings in Iraq. What is the Moslem world community doing about the atrocities committed by the Taleban in Afghanistan?
@ Kevin Straw
In your comments to the above article, you assert 4 charges against the Islamic ideology and pose 6 questions against the Muslim countries.
You say ‘Islam dislikes democracy’. Does it follow that democracy dislikes Islam? Hence, such statements are meaningless and counterproductive. In an attempt to respond to your assertions, it would be beneficial to try and understand the basis of your viewpoint.
On the political landscape we find that only three ideologies exist today: Capitalism, Communism and Islam. The first two ideologies are implemented by states, while Islam is not carried by a state (since 1924), but rather by individuals within different countries, nevertheless Islam as an ideology exists across the globe.
Capitalism is based upon the separation of religion from life. This idea constitutes its doctrine, its ideological leadership and its intellectual basis. According to this intellectual basis man lays the system for life and it is necessary to preserve for man the following types of freedoms: (a) freedom of belief, (b) freedom of opinion, (c) freedom of ownership, and (d) personal freedom.
The Capitalist economic system has arisen out of the freedom of ownership and capitalism has become the most prominent feature that has sprung out from the doctrine of this ideology. Thus, this ideology is called Capitalism named after its most prominent aspect.
As for democracy, which is ascribed to this ideology, it stems from man laying his own system. The people are therefore, the source of authority. They determine the structure and function of the system employ the ruler to govern them, and take away the authority from the ruler when they want to and establish from him the laws they like. This is because ruling is a contract between the people and the ruler to rule according to a system people choose to be applied.
Though democracy is part of capitalism, it is less prominent than the economic system. In the West the Capitalist economy influences the government to the extent that the capitalists are effectively the real rulers. Moreover, democracy is not limited to this ideology, since the Communists also claim to be democratic and pretend that the governing belongs to the people. It is therefore more accurate to call this ideology the Capitalist Ideology or simply, Capitalism.
This ideology emerged when the emperors and kings of Europe and Russia were using religion as a means to exploit the people, transgress against them and suck their blood. The clergy was used as an instrument for this. There arose, as a result of the oppression, a bloody struggle in which the philosophers and thinkers went as far as denying religion. While others, acknowledged religion but called for its separation from life. Eventually, the opinion of the majority of the philosophers and thinkers settled on one idea, the separation of religion from life. It naturally resulted in the separation of religion from the state.
Thus, the opinion settled on avoiding the discussion of religion, whether in denial or recognition, and instead confined the discussion to the necessity of separating religion from life. This notion constituted a compromise between the clergy, on the one hand, who sought to control everything in the name of religion, and the philosophers and thinkers, on the other hand, who denied religion and theocracy. Therefore, this idea does not deny religion nor does it allow it to interfere in the life, instead it just separates it from life.
Consequently, the doctrine which was embraced by the West is the separation of religion from life, and this doctrine is the intellectual basis upon which all thoughts are built, the basis for the leadership direction of man and his viewpoint in life. It is the basis for solving all of life’s problems. It is the intellectual leadership carried and propagated in the World by the West.
The separation of religion from life implicitly recognises religion, and by doing so, it recognises that there is a Creator of the Universe, Man and Life, and that there will be a Day of Resurrection – since these are the origins of religion as a religion.
Socialism which led to Communism views the universe, man and life as only matter and that matter is the origin of all things. The evolving of this matter brought all things into existence and thus there is nothing beyond matter. Therefore, matter has no beginning and no end, is everlasting and self-existing, i.e., not created by anyone. Communists, therefore, deny that matter is created by a Creator. They deny the spiritual aspect of matter and view the recognition of the spiritual aspect as constituting a threat to life.
Consequently, they maintain that “religion is the opium of the masses” which sedates and hinders them from action. They believe in nothing but matter, even thought is claimed to be a reflection of matter on the brain. Hence, matter, for them, is the origin of thought and the origin of everything and through the materialistic evolution all things are brought into existence. Accordingly, they deny the existence of the Creator and consider matter to be eternal, and thus, they deny what preceded this life and what is to follow it and fail to recognise anything except this life.
In spite of the differences between Capitalism and Socialism in respect to their view about the universe, man and life, yet both agree that the ideals to be sought by man are the sublime values that man lays down for himself, while happiness is to enjoy the optimum level of sensual gratification which in their opinion are the means to happiness, even happiness itself. The two ideologies also agree upon preserving the personal freedom of the individual so man can act as he likes, however he desires, as long as he sees his happiness in that action. Therefore, the personal freedom of the individual is a part of what is sanctified by these two ideologies.
Both ideologies differ in their view of the individual and society. Capitalism is an individualistic ideology which assumes society to be composed of individuals. It pays secondary attention to society and concentrates its attention on the individual. Therefore, it considers it necessary to secure the freedoms of the individual. In order to ensure this freedom, every member works for the sake of society. Freedom of belief is, therefore, one of the things sanctified by this ideology. Freedom of ownership is also sanctified and not restricted by its philosophy but by the government which intervenes to guarantee the liberties. The government implements these restrictions by the police and through law enforcement. The state, however, is considered a means and not an end in itself. Sovereignty ultimately belongs to the individuals and not to the state. Accordingly, Capitalism carries an ideological leadership, which is the separation of religion from life’s affairs, and on the basis of this leadership Capitalism implements its laws, calls for, and attempts to be applied everywhere.
Socialism and Communism is an ideology which views society as a collective group consisting of human beings and their relationship with nature. Thus, people will submit to this relationship inevitably and automatically. This collective is one single unit of man, nature, and relationships, and all constitute one whole and not parts separated from each other. Nature is considered to be a part of mans character, the part he carries in himself.
Man does not evolve without being connected with this part of his personality, i.e., nature, because mans relationship with nature is like the relationship of the thing with its own essence. Accordingly, society is considered to be one unit whose three elements evolve together as a whole. And thus man has to revolve within this group like a spoke in a wheel. Therefore, Communists hold no freedom of belief or economical ownership for the individual; belief and economy are defined by the state. Consequently, the state is also one of the things sanctified by this ideology.
From this materialistic philosophy, life’s systems have emanated and the economic system was considered the primary basis and the main factor in determining other systems. Hence, Socialism and Communism carries an ideological leadership which is materialism and dialectic materialism and on this basis it implements its systems, calls for them and attempts to apply them everywhere.
Islam is not only Unique – it is the TRUTH and agrees with Man’s nature.
As for Islam, it holds that beyond the Universe, Man and Life, there is a Creator, who created them all. Therefore, its basis is the conviction in the existence of Allah (swt). The Aqeedah (doctrine) is a comprehensive idea about the universe, man and life, what preceded this life and what is to follow it. As for the system that emanates from this doctrine, it is the solution for man’s problems, the method for implementing those solutions, preserving the doctrine, and conveying the ideology to others.
The ideology comes into existence through the mind of a man either through revelation sent to man from Allah (swt) combined with an order to convey it or through a genius capacity acquired by a man.
As to the ideology which comes into existence in the mind of a man revealed from Allah (swt) – this is the correct ideology since, it is Allah (swt) who is the creator of the universe, man and life. Therefore, it is conclusively a definite proven ideology.
Whereas, the ideology which sparks in the mind of man because of his genius, is false since it is developed by a limited mind which is not all knowing. Furthermore, man’s ability to set a system is liable to disparity, differences, contradictions, and influence of the environment in which he lives – a fact which produces a contradictory system leading to man’s misery. Therefore, the ideology which arises in a man’s mind is false in its Aqeedah (doctrine) and system.
This Aqeedah has defined the spiritual aspect in everything, which means the creation of the universe, man and life by a creator. Likewise, the relationship of the universe with Allah (swt) and the relationship of the life and of man with Allah is the spiritual aspect of the universe, life and man. The spirit (ruh) therefore is man’s comprehension of his relationship with Allah (swt).
The belief in Allah (swt) must also be linked to the belief in the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw), his Message, and that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah (swt). Hence, it is obligatory to accept all that the Qur’an has informed us of.
Accordingly, the Islamic Aqeedah makes it compulsory to believe in what had preceded this life (Allah), and to believe in that which is after this life – the Day of Resurrection. It also obliges man to believe that in this life he is restricted by the Commands of Allah (swt); which constitutes the relationship with what preceded this life. Man will be reckoned as to whether he obeyed these commands. This accountability constitutes the relationship of this life with what is to follow it. Inevitably, a Muslim must realise his relationship with Allah (swt) when undertaking any action, and direct his actions according to the Commands of Allah (swt). This is the meaning of mixing matter and spirit. The ultimate aim of directing Muslims actions according to the Commands of Allah (swt) is to attain His (swt) pleasure. While the immediate end sought in undertaking the action is the value the action yields (i.e., materialistic or spiritual or moral or humanitarian).
Allah (swt) says,
“I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.” [TMQ: Surah Al Dhariyat, 51:56].
Hence, trying to reconcile fundamental differences between Islam and democratic Capitalism is a non-starter; since one is a Divinely Revealed creed whilst the other is a brainchild of man’s limited mind and is subject to disparity, differences, contradictions, and influence of the environment in which he lives.
Mr. Straw, with regards to your questions re Muslim countries, Islam has defined the system of government to be the Khilafah as a unitary state for the Muslims. It is not a kingdom or monarchy; it is not an imperial democratic, dictatorial or theocratic system. This is deduced from the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the ijma (consensus) of the Sahaba (Companions). The Prophet (saw) told us about the Khilafah when he said,
“If the pledge of allegiance was given to two Khaleefahs, then kill the second one.”
Yet, today there are 55 Muslim rulers, each presiding over a divided Ummah, having a unique nationalistic flag hoisted upon them and federated under the OIC umbrella. Such negligence and misapplication of the Islamic system has caused many in the World to accept the status quo as representing “the Islamic State” collectively, when in fact this is a complete mockery.
The Muslims masses within these state-lets are striving to change this situation to bring about a unitary state, as the recent University of Maryland Poll recorded 74 per cent of respondents in Egypt and 79 per cent in Pakistan expressing support for a state based strictly on Shari’ah Law. Hence, Muslims are the first to reject these rulers in their lands as being illigimate and demand their immediate removal and replacement with a single borderless state.
Since the Islamic State is the Khaleefah, it follows that when a Khaleefah is present the Islamic State exists. This was true from the year the state was established some 1400 years ago and Muslims had never been ruled without a Khaleefah until, by the hands of Mustapha Kemal Attaturk and the disbelieving (kafir) colonial powers abolished this Khilafah State in 1342 AH (1924 AD). The mess that you see today in the Muslim lands is as a direct result of Western interference in our affairs in an effort to prevent the reunification of the sons of Muslims under a single political leadership.
The following articles of a proposed Draft Constitution should help to shed some light on the question you posed.
Article 1
The Islamic creed (Aqeedah) constitutes the foundations of the State. Nothing is permitted to exist in the government’s structure, regime, accountability, or any other aspect connected with the government, that does not take the creed as its source. The creed is also the source for the State’s constitution and canons. Nothing connected to the constitution or canons is permitted to exist unless it emanates from the Islamic creed.
Article 2
The domain of Islam (Dar al-Islam) is that entity which applies the rules of Islam in life’s affairs and whose security is maintained by Muslims. The domain of disbelief (Dar al-Kufr) is that entity which applies the rules of kufr and whose security is maintained by the Kuffar.
It is worth noting that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc have American military contingents providing their national security!
Article 8
The Arabic language is the language of Islam and the sole language of the State.
By contrast, many Muslim countries have adopted English as the ‘Business’ language, whilst Arabic for some is relegated to domestic/cultural purposes.
Article 10
There is no such thing as a clergy in Islam as all Muslims bear the responsibility for Islam. The State will prevent anything that signifies the existence of a clergy among Muslims.
Clergy exists in most Muslim countries.
Article 11
The primary function of the State is the propagation of the invitation (da’wah) to Islam.
Forget propagation, the rulers in the Muslim countries have yet to established Islam in their own lands – though they boast illustrious names such as “Islamabad”.
Article 13
Every individual is innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be punished without a court sentence. Torturing is absolutely forbidden and whoever inflicts torture on anyone shall be punished.
Yet, just look at Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries whose jails are bursting with innocent (Muslim) citizens incarcerated by the ruthless regimes.
Article 16
The ruling system of the State is that of a unitary ruling system and not a federation.
Article 20
Calling upon the rulers to account for their actions is both a right for the Muslims and a Fard Kifayah (collective duty) upon them. Non-Muslim subjects have the right to make known their complaints about the rulers’ injustice and misapplication of the Islamic rules upon them.
Article 21
Muslims are entitled to establish political parties to question the rulers and to access the positions of ruling through the nation (Ummah) on condition that the parties are based on the creed of Islam and their adopted rules are divine rules; the establishment of such a party does not require a license from the State. Any party not established on the basis of Islam is prohibited.
Article 24
The Khaleefah is deputised by the nation (Ummah) with authority for the enactment of all the Divine Law.
Article 28
Nobody can become Khaleefah without being appointed by the Muslims. Nobody can hold the authority of the Khilafah unless it is acquired legitimately, as is the case with any contract in Islam.
Article 78
The judge of the “Court for the Unjust Acts” is appointed to remove all unjust acts, committed by the Khaleefah, governor(s), or any official of the State, that have been inflicted upon anyone – whether that person is a citizen or not – living in the domain of the State.
Article 81
The Court for the Unjust Acts has the authority to dismiss any ruler, governor and official of the State, including the Khaleefah.
This is far from being a “fiefdom”.
Extracts from the book “The Systems of Islam” – Chapter 3: The Intellectual Leadership of Islam, by: Taqi Uddin an-Nabahani (founder of HT).
I should like to respond in detail to your comment on my comment, but the keystone of my argument is that a theocracy based on an absolute belief in a book cannot be anything but a tyranny. The book is the tyrant, it cannot be gainsaid. But what really cannot be gainsaid? The interpretation of that book. And who is the ultimate arbiter as to which interpretation is true? The religious head because inevitably the religious head having also temporal power in his hands will organise society to his satisfaction. There may be as many guardians you like who in theory can discount this man’s actions or even remove him. But such a man will ensure that those who agree with him will be appointed judges over him! Your system depends entirely on the good faith of one man. The West has got away from such a naive system recognising that power corrupts. Justice in the West is subject to Parliament which is subject to the wishes of the people. Military power is separate from the justiciary and subject to Parliament and thereby to the people. How can a people be free when they are in the grip of a book written in primitive times? The proof of the pudding is in history. Western nations are powerful, educated, technological creative, wealthy and free. Islamic nations are weak, ignorant, technogically primitive and enslaved to a book. It was not always so. Islam possessed the classical texts in Spain which sparked the Enlightenment and thereby the Industrial Revolution for hundreds of years, yet they handed them on as technologically undeveloped as when they conquered that country. For fifteen hundred years the the Christian world was under the religious and temporal rule of Christianity and was thereby in darkness for that period. We have been there and done it and found it sadly wanting. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in this country which Muslim country they would like to live in.
@ Kevin Straw:
The Caliphate will come, it’s inevitable, take it down in writing if you will. So why not kick back and take it as an experiment to see if your predictions will be true or otherwise?
I am from Indonesia so please forgive me if i cannot speak in english so fluently, but i just want to give some comment
@ Kevin Straw
There is some different between theocracy and caliphate system. In theocracy system the ruler represents themselves as the God representation. so their policy cannot protest by the other people. Meanwhile caliphate is not the god representation but ummah (people) representation so we can speak and protest to the ruler if their policy against the Syara (god Law) in our opinion. There were some histories that shown how the Ummah (People) corrected the Hukam (ruler) policy, WE can do that because our Prophet Muhammad PBUH said THe leader of the syuhada (holy man) is Hamzah and the people who corected the ruler and got to be killed because of it.
When you say that quran (the Holy Book) is primitive so it cannot be the system foundation, so how about DEmocracy and all of system which are exist today? all of those systems exist was far from caliphate (islamic) era. we have already known that democracy was found and existed at ancient Greek era \which means it is more primitive than islam. So where is more primitive the DEmocracy which is become the world system today or Islam. In other way i just want to say that Islam is the Best and the most modern system that can become the world hope.
Tsumma takunu Khilafah ala minhajin Nubuwah
@ Kevin Straw
You misunderstand the Islamic state fundamentally! All states require some form of constitution whether it is written or unwritten. In democracies, these constitutions and the canons that follow from them are subject to change as sovereignty belongs to the people. This means that democracies can become dictatorships or as we saw in Europe Nazi Germany!
The Islamic state adopts the Quran as its constiution. The Quran can not be challenged by anyone as its authority is from the Creator of man and therefore self-evident. Therefore, the state, that is the Khaleefah, is bound to rule in accordance with the Quran and the Prophet Muhammed’s interpretation of it. The Islamic state or Caliph (which is the state) is a political authority and not a religious one- it is an executive and must be accountable to the people by its adherence to Islam. Therefore, there is room for ooposition as long as the ooposition is based upon Islam. For opposition to challenge the Quran and Islam is to challenge the intellect and justice of God with the intellect and justice of man and that is an oxymoron! Consequently, Western democracy, has fallen into the trap of confusion and contradiction leading to the creation of tyrrany and oppression, the exploitation of people and the creation of crises upon crises, whether in democracy, communism or dictatorship. All this stems from not solving the fundamental issue of the existence of the Creator and the correct religion which was sent to guide humanity.
Kevin let me quote a sentence you made: “Islam dislikes democracy because Islam cannot allow opposition except within confines prescribed by Islam. It cannot enter into truly free political discussion for this reason”.
There is no ideology in the world that can allow opposition except within its own confines; this is the same with democracy, capitalism and socialism. If people had a desire to implement an ideology then outside opposition to that very ideology would defeat the whole purpose of having that ideology in the first place. For example, could an ideological state such as Britain or America ever accept the idea of opposition to secularism, liberalism and the free market and allow the outside opposition of Islamic rule? The answer is obviously no. An ideological society can only accept opposition within its own principle and legal frame work. This doesn’t necessarily inhibit Islam or any other ideology’s ability to enter into free political discourse, discussion, dialogue and debate.
Another example to my point is the case with the democratic elections in Algeria. When the Islamic Salvation Front vowed to apply Islam comprehensively they won a landslide victory in the first round of elections. Before they could come into power the elections were cancelled. In the words of one commentator “We need to use undemocratic means in order to preserve democracy”. The same sort of thing happens in Turkey quite regularly. Democracy means voting under a secular system where people vote for someone to ‘legislate man made law’. There is also voting within an Islamic system, the difference here is that people do not vote for someone to ‘make the law’ but vote for someone to Apply Allah’s legislation. In Algeria people democratically chose to terminate the idea that humans should legislate and instead democratically decided that Allah should legislate. They used democratic principle to replace secularism with Islamic Sharia law. This type of choice wasn’t allowed because secular democracy would have been replaced with an Islamic political ruling system (under which voting is allowed). Where was the true political opposition to Secular Democratic governance (sovereignty to humans)? Where was the true political choice of real opposition? The case with Algeria is proof that Secularism, Democracy (sovereignty to humans) and Capitalism cannot accept opposition to its ideology. No ideology can accept opposition to its very own existence. Therefore, I suppose that the secular democratic state of Algeria and Turkey are secular democratic fiefdoms of which the people have no real choice. I suppose you can say that both are democratic tyrannies. There is no true justice in Algeria or Turkey.