D. Shura and Democracy - the Modern Synthesis

That there can be a modern synthesis is one of the points of contention between the conservative thinkers who maintain that the only legitimate form of Islamic government is a reinstitution of the caliphate, representing the fixed proper form of government, and the progressive scholars who believe that political theory should not be grounded in an historical interpretation, but rather in the application of ijtihad to the basic principles of the Quran and sunna described above. This trend, which I believe is now in the majority, recognizes that Islamic laws are not static, but that the sharia is capable of a significant dynamism to incorporate new laws as they are needed by society.

This view has significant support in both classical and modern scholarship. For example, the classical scholar Al-Shihristani states in his book Al-Milal wa-Nihal: "We certainly know that events cannot be counted or limited; also we know definitely that the revealed texts did not cover in detail or with direct relevance all events from the time of revelation onwards. In every place, texts have been limited, while the events are not limited, and thus the events should not be controlled by what is limited. The practice of ijtihad should be definitely able to face the continuously emerging events."5

Likewise, Muhammad Asad is very direct about this assertion, stating,

"As we have seen, the sharia refrains deliberately from providing detailed regulations for all of the manifold, changing requirements of our social existence. The need for continuous, temporal legislation is, therefore, self-evident. In an Islamic state, this legislation would relate to the many problems of administration not touched upon by the sharia at all, as well as the problems with regard to which the sharia has provided general principles but no detailed laws. In either instance, it is up to the community to evolve the relevant, detailed legislation through an exercise of independent reasoning (ijtihad) in consonance with the spirit of Islamic law and the best interests of the nation."6

When viewed in this light, the question then becomes not, "What does Islam say about democracy?" but rather something more like, "What should Islam say about democracy?" This point is well-stated by Professor Khaled Abou el Fadl, Professor of Islamic Law at the UCLA School of Law: "If Muslims are going to reclaim their right to develop their own political tradition, they must state political ideas not as historical or legal conclusions, but as theoretical propositions to be developed and systematized. In a sense, theory must gain an independent existence apart from history or law... One must move beyond aesthetic interpretations and authentication to the development of systematic political theory. The aim is not to develop a theory of Islamic government, but to develop theories of Islamic government."7

This same progressive thinking is sweeping across the Islamic world, perhaps quite contrary to the image of Islam portrayed in the United States. For example, Mohammed Mahallati, former ambassador to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and adjunct professor at Columbia University, writes the following, predicting that progressive thinking and democratic revisionism will have a significant impact on the Muslim world:

Similarly, Ayatollah Syed Mohammad Bahrul Uloom, a prominent Shia religious scholar in Iraq and former leader of the Iraqi National Congress said the following regarding democracy:

Those who are against democracy philosophically base their objection on one main principle: that in democracy, the will of the people is considered supreme, rather than the law of God. Hence, if all of the people voted to enact a law which was in violation of the ordinances of the sharia, then they would do so. Hence, the opponents of democracy considered it unacceptable that the sovereignty of God would be replaced by the sovereignty of the people.

The proponents of democracy, on the other hand, insist that the concept of shura is mandated in the Quran, and that the modern application of this Quranic mandate is a form of democracy very similar to that seen in the Western world, based on "one person-one vote," as the expression of the mutual consultation of the people.

This approach finds support from at least two lines of reasoning. First, there are an appreciable number who claim absolute sovereignty for the united will of the people (ijma) on the basis of the Prophet’s saying, "Never will God make my community agree on a wrong course."10

As Muhammad Asad states in his book, The Principles of State and Government in Islam, "Many Muslims conclude from this tradition that whatever the community – or at least the majority within it – agrees upon must, under all circumstances, be the right course."11 While Asad does not precisely agree with this statement, he is of the definite opinion that the concept of shura implies that the people must directly participate in the government.

Another line of reasoning which supports the notion that we must consider for all practical purposes the will of the people to be supreme is the idea expressed by Dr. Fathi Osman in his book, Sharia in Contemporary Society, that "if the majority of any Muslim people expresses through legal and free voting, that they do not want to be bound anymore by sharia, how could sharia be imposed on them by force, when Islam emphatically states that there is no coercion in matters of faith."12

Muhammad Asad completely concurs with this view, stating that "in order to satisfy the requirements of Islamic law, the leadership of the state must be of an elective nature; consequently, an assumption of governmental power through non-elective means of any description whatsoever becomes automatically, even though the person or persons concerned be Muslims, as illegal as an imposition of power, by conquest, from outside the Muslim community."14

Hence, as a principle, we may state that the government, both in its legislative arm, as well as in its executive arm, and the function of choosing a leader, must be based on the consent, and the will of the people, and that this is the expression of the principles of shura and baya. Regarding the issue of legislation, Muhammad Asad states the following:

"It is evident from the context that the expression ‘among themselves’ in the Quranic ordinance under consideration refers to the whole community: hence, the legislative assembly – or, to use a term well-known throughout Muslim history, the majlis al-shura – must be truly representative of the entire community, both men and women. Such a representative character can be achieved only through free and general elections: therefore, the members of the majlis must be elected by means of the widest possible suffrage, including both men and women."15

In terms of the function of choosing a ruler, the well-known political thinker and leader of the Islamic movement in Sudan, Hasan Turabi, who interestingly is vilified in U.S. government reports as an extremist entirely incompatible with Western thinking, states the following:

"The caliphate began as an elected consultative institution. Later it degenerated into a hereditary, or usurpatory, authoritarian government. The question arises whether the proper Islamic form of government – elective and consultative – amounts to a liberal representative democracy? In a large Islamic state, consultation would have to be indirect and undertaken by representatives of the people. This was practiced in early Islam... It follows that an Islamic form of government is essentially a form of representative democracy."16

Thus, across the ideological spectrum of liberal to conservative scholars, Muslims have reached the same conclusion: the current expression of Islamic political principles is some form of representative democracy. Yet, the prevalent opinion about Islam is that it is stolidly anti-democratic. Muslims, aware of the intellectual enlightenment in their midst, continue to be surprised by these misconceptions, including Ayatollah Khomeini himself, who remarked on on this subject:

"How can anyone accuse the regime of the Islamic Republic of being opposed to democracy and the rule of the people, while there are no countries, among the countries of at least this region, in which the votes of the people, the participation of the people and free elections, are paid attention to as in the system of the Islamic Republic?"17