ABDULRAZAQ SULAIMAN, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO NIGERIA PREAMBLE In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most merciful. All thanks, adorations, glory and glorifications be ascribed to Allah (S.W.T), the creator of the world unto whom the success achieved throughout the process of this essay is attributed. May his peace and blessing be upon prophet Muhammad (SAW), his household, his companions and those that trend his path until the day of resurrection. AMEEN? I am forever grateful to Allah (S.W.T). INTRODUCTION In trying to understand the positioning of Islam between democratic and non-democratic systems of government and to single out the one that comes closer to Islamic approach to political governance, I observe that Islamic theology does not contain a comprehensive list of injunctions about the theory of political governance. The Quran only mentions about a number of moral principles, which are relevant to political governance, and not about its fundamental principles and organizational structure. Quran often makes reference to past societies and rulers, but its principal focus is on the moral behavior of societies and the extent of justice observed by rulers rather than on the format of politics and its structure. It is told in the Quran that acts of transgression committed by past societies were grounds for their destruction by God, while those who acted upon the orders of God thrived, and the just rulers were held in high esteem by God. Prophets like David and Solomon (who also served as kings) were the type of rulers who are praised in the Quran for acting justly and compassionately towards their people. Likewise, the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam does not touch upon the organizational structure of political governance, but contains advices geared to the rulers on principles of justice, compassion, mercy and obedience to God. Given that Islamic theology does not admonish clearly defined and binding principles about political governance, Muslims have been left free to establish their own organizational structure in matters of politics, in accordance with the social conditions of the time or the preferences of the rulers. This was, indeed, the case for the Four Caliphs’ (Omar, Abubakar, Uthman and Ali) period and thereafter. The caliphate system, established during the Four Caliphs period, emanated from the de facto will and choice of the companions of the Prophet rather than stemming from Islamic theology. Nevertheless, Muslims were influenced by other societies when adopting norms especially in regard to political governance and the establishment of institutions. The institution of Caliphate emerged out of a practical necessity in the aftermath of Prophet Muhammads death. His closest companion Abu Bakr al-Siddiq was chosen to head the Ummah, and he assumed the modest title of Khalifah (caliph being its Western corruption) or deputy. But within the span of a few decades the caliphate degenerated into an absolute hereditary monarchy. The principle of hereditary succession also found general acceptance. In later centuries, power slipped from the hands of the caliph but the caliphate lingered on as a notional institution. Kings and sultans of the Muslim world found it expedient to seek the caliphs formal recognition in return for offerings of salutations and gifts. The Shiah, of course, did not recognise the caliphs and looked to their own imams for political leadership and spiritual guidance. The late Ottomans staked their claim to caliphate, if only to beef up their bargaining power vis-à-vis the European states. But when the empire disintegrated after the First World War, the new Turkish leaders, aspiring to build a modern republican state, abolished the caliphate in 1924. Since then, there has been no serious proposal from any quarter to revive this supra-national politico-religious institution. Even the Islamic Conference Organisation (ICO), which pays lip-service to Islamic solidarity, takes ground realities into consideration to exclude political unification of the Muslim world from its proclaimed agenda. In the field of Shariah, too, the Arab societies have traversed a long way from the early beginnings when the divine law, derived mainly from the Quran and the Sunnah (sayings of the Prophet), governed all aspects of life. In classical argument, the institution of caliphate itself was justified in terms of the need for a central authority to enforce the Shariah. Ironically enough, it was under the late Ottoman caliphate that the application of Shariah was progressively circumscribed. SOME VIEWS ON ISLAM AND MODERN DEMOCRACY “If the term democracy refers to a system in which citizens have those rights (freedom of speech, the rule of law, minority rights, an independent judiciary) needed to make free and intelligent decisions, that they have a real choice of candidates, and that they can vote for the top leader - then no, Islamism is resoundingly not democratic”(Geneive Abdo) Islamists believe in divine sovereignty and express a frank and deep disdain for popular sovereignty, which happens to be the key idea behind democracy. Instead, they hold that Muslims need nothing more than Islamic law (the Sharia) as applied by an Islamist ruler: A free man is one who obeys Allahs rules and orders and worships God alone. How the ruler gets to power has to do with Gods will, not mans. Hadi Hawang of Malaysia is blunt about this: I am not interested in democracy, Islam is not democracy, Islam is Islam. Ahmad Qutash al-Azayida, an Islamist deputy of the Lower House in Jordan, is also succinct: Islamic law is what all Muslims want and the rule of the majority is democracy. In the famous (if not completely verified) words of Ali Belhadj, a leader of Algerias Islamic Salvation Front, When we are in power, there will be no more elections because God will be ruling. Muhammad al-Ghazali, one of Egypts leading Islamist thinkers, explains at greater length that he rejects democracy because it gives humans the power to ignore the laws of Islam. Were the parliament, for example, to abolish capital punishment, this would violate the Islamic text, which says that killers must be executed. This democracy, then, must be rejected because it violates a religious text that has existed throughout the development of religion: from Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam. Some thinkers accept a within-the-family consultation of Islamic experts (shura in Arabic) while rejecting the free-for-all that is democracy. Ghazali calls consultation the rule of God and democracy is the rule of the people. He accepts the former because it involves consulting pious, God-fearing people, while democracy involves the opinions of those who commit major sins and debaucheries. democracy is objectionable because it treats equally the virtuous and the debauched, the strong and the weak, the believer and the infidel. Islamists also insist that Muslims have no need to bother with the superfluities of political democracy, as they already possess something much better. Islam, Hasan at-Turabi of the Sudan blithely asserts, is inherently democratic and has no need for the trappings of Western-style democracy. It is the most modern form of Gods message, is the most democratic religion. . . . Gods message orders us to give, to share, everything - power, knowledge, property, wealth. This total sharing is democracy pushed to the furthest recesses of daily life. Such peculiar logic (what has sharing to do with picking a leader?) leads Turabi to the audacious conclusion that political parties are traps for hunting votes which ensure the wielding of power for a few peoples benefit. In other words, democracy is really a form of dictatorship! In his survey of audio cassettes recorded by thirty leading Sunni Muslim preachers (and meant exclusively to be heard by fellow-believers), the distinguished Israeli scholar Emmanuel Sivan reaches this unequivocal conclusion: No quarter for democracy: this is the verdict of the thirty most popular Sunni Islamist preachers. No quarter for pluralism, liberty, and equality before the law either, unless subordinated to and constrained by the Sharia. Their multitude of fans seem to concur. Still, this philosophical disapproval has its exceptions. Sivan asks: Should the Islamists, then, have recourse to the much maligned electoral process when available? Despite the preachers reservations with regard to rule by the ignorant majority, they answer with a resounding yes. They may despise democracy but they are ready to exploit it in the pursuit of power. Like other non-democrats out of power, in other words, Islamists like democracy. They even develop theoretical schemes justifying democracy as an Islamic method of choosing ones leaders. Yes, Islamists do sometimes talk like democrats, but there is no reason to believe that these fine words are a true guide to their intentions, as opposed to a way to gain legitimacy and enhance their chances to get into office. Ballots are fine so long as Islamists are on the outside. Once ensconced in power, they will not gracefully relinquish power (an attitude Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian characterized in 1992 as one person, one vote, one time). Plenty of evidence suggests that their sweet words about democracy are temporary. Hans Guenter Lobmeyer, a specialist on Syria, concludes about the Muslim Brethren in that country: It is beyond question that democracy is not the Brotherhoods political aim but a means to another end: the assumption of power. Ahmad Nawfal, a Muslim Brother from Jordan, candidly sums up this dual dynamic: If we have a choice between democracy and dictatorship, we choose democracy. But if its between Islam and democracy, we choose Islam. ALTERNATIVE AND PRACTICAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE Many Islamists associate democracy with foreign intervention and non-belief. But democracy is a set of mechanisms to guarantee freedom of thought and assembly and peaceful competition for governmental Authority through ballot boxes. The Islamic movement’s negative attitude toward democracy is holding it back. We have no modern experience in Islamic activity that can replace democracy today. The Islamization of democracy is the closest thing to implementing Shura (consultation). Those who reject this thought have not produced anything different than the one- party system of rule. We have no modern example for implementing Islamic government. The uneducated think that the Islamic program is a ready-made entity: stick it on the ground and implement it. I don’t see any choice before us but to adapt the democratic idea. It might even be dangerous to ignore democracy. Even more dangerous is for the Islamic movement to reach a state where either it remains in power or it dissipates. The movement’s options must be open to guarantee its existence. The ones who can gain the most from democracy in Nigeria are the Muslims; they should be the keenest for it. They must come to power whenever free elections are held .The secularists are in the minority these days. They are the ones who have problems with democracy. They are preventing democracy in Nigeria by creating centri-fugal forces (Boko Haram) to fight against it, because they would lose. The Islamic mind must adjust until it sees things in their real light. Muslims must realize that, the balance of power is simply not in their favor. The balance is in the secularists’ favor. Governance might be something the Islamic movement cannot do alone. Maybe the better option is to participate in government as long as the balance of power is what it is. This would maintain the achievements that the movement has gained over time. Governing single- handedly would put the Islamists in the spotlight, and then isolation. Rather, they must open up to all the political forces and forge alliances with all national parties. Democracy today is a framework for-reordering of the world. As such its incumbent on the muslim ummah to have a deeper understanding of is going on. We must be able to sift the grain from the chaff; to identify those aspects of democracy that are useful as such desireable and acceptable, those aspects that injurious and need to be resisted, modified or adapted to suit Islamic principles. The claim of inevitability and universality has to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, the response should be positive as well as creative, since isolation and autarky are not the best option. We must work to lessen the conflicts between the Islamic trend and other political trends in the Muslim world. May God help us. “If anyone fears God, He will find him a way out for him that he never thought possible. If one trusts God, He will be enough for him” (Talaq:2-3). Such promises must remain in our souls, and in the souls of the generations to come. The sun of islam will shine the world over. But we must affirm the need to educate ourselves in Islam, fear God, observe the prayers, read Qur’an, and find time to feel God in our everyday lives. We must believe that, without God’s presence, we cannot change any balance of power. “And God will have His way, but most people do not believe” (Yusuf:21) CONCLUSION Democracy today is a framework for-reordering of the world. As such its incumbent on the muslim ummah to have a deeper understanding of what is going on. We must be able to sift the grain from the chaff; to identify those aspects of democracy that are useful as such desireable and acceptable, and those aspects that are injurious and need to be resisted, modified or adapted to suit Islamic principles. The claim of inevitability and universality has to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, the response should be positive as well as creative(particepation), since isolation and autarky are not the best option. REFERENCES Al- Azmeh,Aziz(1993),islam and modernities. London: Verso Beinin,J. and Stork,J.(eds.),Political Islam: Essays from middle east report. Berkeley: university of Caliponia Press. Burgat,FRANCOIS (1997),Ballot Boxes, Militaries, and Islamic movement’ in the Islamism debate. Martin Kramer (ed.).the Moshe Dayan center for Middle eastern and African studies: Tel Aviv University. Ghamari-Tabrizi, B(1998),Islamism and the quest for an alternative modernity, unpublished Ph.D dissertation. Sociology Department. University onf California Santa Cruz. QUR’AN AND AHADITH. Marks: 50+25+20 = 95%
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 11:24:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015