Past Events - CSID Address at delivered in Algiers, Algeria, on March 20-22, 2000, at the International Conference on Islam & Democracy organized by the High Council of Algeria. - Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)

CSID Lecture on "ISLAM & DEMOCRACY: BETWEEN THE PAST, THE PRESENT & THE FUTURE" by Radwan Masmoudi

Dr. Radwan Masmoudi is the Executive Director of CSID. This talk was delivered in Algiers, Algeria, on March 20-22, 2000, at the International Conference on Islam & Democracy organized by the High Council of Algeria.

The purpose of this paper is to take a brief historical look at the interactions between Islam, as a religion, and the political systems that ruled the Muslim world (Ummah). My objective is to outline possible scenarios for the future, and describe how they might serve the Muslim Ummah, and Islam, to different degrees in light of the teachings of the Quran and the Sunna, as well as the emerging and changing needs of our societies.

There is an apparent dilemma in Islam: On one hand Allah (swt) tells us that “those who do not rule according to Allah’s wishes and decrees are the Unbelievers”. On the other, Allah (swt) or his Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) do not tell us how we are supposed to rule according to His decrees or Who is supposed to be the final authority as to what those decrees really mean. We know that throughout history, Muslim Jurists and scholars (Ulamas) had very different and diverging opinions about many issues, and that the principle of Ijtihad is essential in Islam.

In purely religious matters, Ulamas and Fuqahas had complete freedom to practice Ijtihad and come up with innovative answers according to the ever-changing conditions of the society. However, in political matters, this Ijtihad, which is necessary to develop strong and flexible institutions to serve the Ummah, was quickly stopped and banned by rulers who wanted to hijack political freedoms and take advantage of a growing and powerful nation. The result was that, in political matters, Muslims did not develop strong traditions of consultation, nor did they develop strong institutions capable of performing “check and balance” on the rulers. In the end, the performance and quality of the government was dependent on the integrity and ‘kindness’ of the ruler. If the ruler was pious and god-fearing, like the Khulafa al-Rashedden, things were not so bad. However, if the ruler or the ruling family or elite, wanted to do something else, there was nothing or no one to stop them.

It is time that Muslims develop a political system that is capable of protecting the interests of our nations, within the teachings of our religion, especially in light of the emerging technologies that are bringing the whole world closer every day.

When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was on his deathbed, many sincere Muslims were alarmed at the prospects of disunity among the new nation and asked him, repeatedly to appoint a “successor”. To the chagrin of many, Prophet Muhammad refused to do so clearly sending the signal that his mission as a prophet was now complete and it is up to them to pick and choose Who and how they will be ruled. This very important point is a fundamental principle in Islamic democracy and is what we call today “self-government”. The wisdom of the Prophet highlights two very major points:

1- If the Prophet appointed a “successor”, that person could claim infallibility and really abuse his position and authority. It would be almost impossible to stop him.

2- The political system needed to evolve and change depending on changing conditions in history and geography. If the Prophet had fixed it in time before his death, it would be a complete disservice to the future generations of Muslims.

Based on this, the Prophet and Allah (swt) wanted to give the Muslim Ummah (as the true and only representative of God on earth) the right and the duty to select who will rule them, and to hold him (or her) accountable. The source of political authority (sovereignty) was therefore transferred to the Ummah and not to a single individual or group of people. Therefore, just like there is no religious class (hierarchy) in Islam, there also is no single representative of God on earth who deserves to be obeyed and followed at all times. Therefore the Islamic State is not a religious state (theocracy), ruled by a religious elite. Rather, it belongs to the people, who are collectively responsible for organizing themselves in a way that best serves their interests and in a way that is also compatible with the principles of Quran.

So, when the Prophet (pbuh) died, Muslims were forced to gather in one place and decide on their political future. They elected Abu Bakr as their ruler, although this vote was not scientific (they did the best they could) or unanimous. Some form of political opposition began on that day, when some other Muslim leaders including Ali Ibn Abi Talib, disagreed with that decision. However, most of the early Muslim leaders (sahabas) were trained by the prophet to be selfless and to tolerate differences of opinions. So they accepted the rule of Abu Bakr as the wish of the majority, even though some disagreed with it. Unfortunately, those early Muslim pioneers did not foresee the real dangers of conflict and civil war that could result if they did not develop a system of check and balance that could ‘guarantee’ that the ruler did not have excessive powers or did not diverge too much from the will of the majority. They trusted that Abu Bakr had the knowledge, expertise, and wisdom to not deviate too much from the teachings of Allah and his prophet.

After a short period of time, Abu Bakr died and Muslims had to gather again to chose another leader. This time they picked Omar ibn al-Khattab, who was another very close companion of the prophet with a tough-minded approach. Another excellent choice, but again the vote was not unanimous and the opposition was growing. The early Muslim pioneers, unfortunately, again failed to see the growing dangers of political dissent if it was not organized and channeled into political institutions with clear guidelines and objectives (political parties, election methods, parliament (majlis-al-shura), etc..). One day, Omar was giving a sermon in the Mosque and he told the crowd that he was elected as their leader but he was not the best among them. He said that he would try to rule according to the teachings of Allah and his prophet, but that if he made a mistake, they should correct him. One person rose from the crowd and told Omar that if he deviated from the book, they would correct him with “the edge of the sword”. Unfortunately, neither Omar nor the rest of the Muslims scholars and companions saw the dangers of this approach to ‘correcting the ruler’. Someone should have jumped and said that it was not an acceptable way, and that Muslims needed to develop a better way of correcting the ruler when he errs. Someone should have reminded that person that the prophet said: “the best Jihad is to say the truth in front of an oppressive ruler” (and not to kill that ruler). Unfortunately, no one did.

A few years later, Omar was killed. History tells us that Omar was a great man and a great ruler; just, selfless, and compassionate. However, even great men have opponents who may disagree with them on one or more issues or actions. By that time, political unrest and dissent was growing in the incipient nation. The following two leaders (Khulafas), Othman and Ali were elected in a similar manner, but hard as they tried to contain dissent and unite the Ummah, the opposition to their rule and form of government was growing. Both of them were killed. When Ali was killed (about 30 years after Prophet’s Muhammad death), the unrest had grown and engulfed almost the whole Ummah. Muslim armies of hundreds of thousands, led by the Prophet’s companions, were fighting each other over who was “entitled” to rule the Ummah. There was so much unrest and destruction during this ‘civil war’ that the new ruler (Muawiya) decided unilaterally that his successor should be his son. His justification was that:

a. it would be impossible for the whole Muslim ummah, which had grown by a factor of a hundred during that period of time, to either vote or agree on a ruler.

A few Muslim scholars disagreed with him and refused to go along (give baya). However, the majority was intimidated, by shear force and the threats of chaos, into submission. The Muslims had failed to establish a system that would accomplish their major objectives of uniting the Umma, and yet rule according to the will of the majority and hold the rulers accountable. Muslims had to choose between unity under a dictator, or chaos under freedom. From that point on, the Muslim history was interwoven by periods of freedom, dictatorship, chaos, and unity. However, as is always the case when one man or a small group of people have a monopoly over political power, the result was mostly fear, intimidation, and tyranny. In order to justify their oppression, these rulers often co-opted some religious ‘scholars’ into giving them ‘Islamic’ legitimacy as the “ameer al-mumineen” or the “khalifat rasul allah”.

Occasionally, Muslims would get lucky and get a God-fearing ruler. One such ruler was Omar ibn Abdel-aziz, often referred to as the fifth of the Khulafa al-rashideen. Upon inheriting the throne from his uncle, Omar realized that he inherited something that did not belong to him or to his uncle. He declared to the nation that he gives them back their ‘baya’, which his great grand-father took by force, and that they were free to choose (i.e. elect) the ruler that they wanted. Upon hearing that, Muslims were astonished and realized that Omar was a special person and then chose him of their own free will.

With few such exceptions, Muslims were ruled by dictators and tyrants who ruled with the threat of the sword. The only way to get rid of them was to also use force and/or declare a revolution/mutiny. This happened many times, as different dynasties came and went in the different parts of the Muslim world, but the people (i.e. the majority) were usually absent from any decision-making. Muslims learned to tolerate a little bit of abuse from their rulers as long as those rulers did not go over board and generally left people alone. Politics was a matter for the elite.

While this situation sounds bad, in fact it was much better that in many other parts of the world where the rulers were not only un-elected, they were also extremely brutal and abusive. In general, Muslim rulers were kept in check by the law (Sharia) and by the judiciary which was more or less independent. Muslim rulers always knew that if they stepped out of their bounds, they would be overthrown or killed, because Muslim masses realized that they had a responsibility to keep the government in check. They just did not have a peaceful way to do so. The sword (or the gun) was the only way to settle political differences.

After centuries of great civilization and development, Muslims began to decline at every level in the 15^th century, which coincided with the rise of the European civilization. The mainly Christian Europeans were tired of their rulers who were closely intertwined with the church. They decided to overthrow their kings and with them, church rule. This began in France, but quickly spread to the rest of Europe. A book, written by Rose Wilder Lane, and titled “Islam and the Discovery of Freedom”, suggests that Europeans learned the value and importance of freedom mainly from the Muslims. In the Muslim world, the rulers and the mosque (the ulamas) were mostly separate entities that operated almost independently of each other. Mosques ran on foundations, endowments, and donations from the public. Europeans decided that they had it with their kings and wanted to have more say in their day-to-day life as well as the way their government is run. The old ideals of democracy and government accountability were revived and strengthened.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, the majority of Muslim countries were colonized by European powers. This was a clear reflection of the advancement of European civilizations and cultures and the extent of the fall of the Muslim civilizations during the last 3 or 4 centuries. When Muslim countries fought for independence, Islam was usually the rallying point. However, when Muslim countries became independent, the Muslim elites felt that they needed to take drastic actions to catch up with the west. Many of them, including Ataturk and Bourguiba, felt that Islam was an impediment to modernity, and that if we wanted to develop our countries, we needed to leave Islam aside. Secularism, or complete separation between the state and religion, became a popular idea, especially among the western educated intelligentsia. However, the majority of the people was still deeply religious, and felt that Islam is still their ‘way of life’. Two completely different societies were living side-by-side, with very little interactions.

The modernizing efforts of the secularists could have succeeded if they did not become “anti-religious”. The true definition of secularism is separation of religion and state, however, in the Muslim countries, the state wanted to destroy the mosque because it felt threatened by it. Similarly most secularists, especially the leftists and the communists, were really atheists and went as far as repeating the Marxist slogan “religion is the opium of the people”. Instead of leaving religion alone, Arab and ‘Muslim’ secularists wanted to remove and/or destroy Islam. It is true that the interpretations of Islam that they were confronted with, at the beginning of this century, were mostly archaic and old-fashioned and probably not suited for the modern age. However, the correct and proper response should have been to revitalize and modernize Islamic thinking (using Ijtihad), and to ‘Islamize’ modernity.

Modern Muslim rulers did not have the training nor the patience to initiate such an intellectual effort. Furthermore, they felt threatened by the Muslim scholars (ulamas) who did not want to go along with their modernization and secularization programs. Democratic traditions were, of course, very weak and so Muslim leaders became tyrants and dictators. The intellectual and political elites felt that their programs were the right ones, and the masses were not educated or ‘qualified’ to express their opinions about them. Anyone expressing opposition or criticism was swiftly silenced.

Partly as a response to the “secular” attack, and partly as a way to establish and strengthen their identities, the people became more religious. This is indeed a strange, but not unique, phenomenon: the more the rulers wanted their societies to ‘leave religion aside’, the more these societies became religious. The best examples are Iran, Turkey, and Tunisia. In order to stay in power, these and other ‘secular’ regimes had to resort to violence and the military. This in turn made secularism unpopular, as it became almost synonymous with dictatorship. As political dissent was still banned and punished, the mosques became the only place where people can meet and vent their frustrations. Islamic movements became popular and began to challenge the governments’ legitimacy. The regimes responded by cracking down on dissent and especially on the religious/Islamic movements. Many, but thankfully not most, Islamic movements resorted to violence/terrorism as a way to counteract the violence of the regimes. The cycle of violence became a real danger to the very existence of many countries.

This cycle of violence was not just a threat to the physical well being of the Muslims, it also was a threat to their intellectual development. Ideas about Islamic political thought, the system of government, elections and accountability, and even secularism needed to be addressed and discussed. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of violence and fear was not conducive to any debate. Islamists, i.e. people who believe that Islam has a role to play in politics, could not find a safe environment in which they can debate their ideas and proposals. Simplistic answers, such as “the Quran is our constitution”, was the only thing they could provide. This, however, did not diminish their popularity, as the secularists did not fare any better. Both suffered from the same suffocating environment of fear and intimidation.

In 1979, the Islamic revolution in Iran sent shivers of fear into the rulers’ hearts and rays of hope into the peoples’ hearts. The revolution proved that Islam was still a very powerful political force, even at the end of the 20^th century and in one of the most secularized countries in the Muslim world. Since secularism was tied to oppression and tyrannical governments, it was doomed to fail. Muslim governments felt threatened by the revolution and began to see the need for reforms and a more open government. In the eighties, many governments in the Muslim world tried to implement small steps toward ‘democracy’. However, it was hard for them to control the pace of democratization. The more steps they took toward democracy, the more the people demanded, and the more they (the governments) felt threatened. In the late eighties, three Islamic movements (in Tunisia, Algeria, and Turkey) almost came to power through general elections. The secular reaction was strong and swift: confrontations at all levels until this ‘threat’ is removed. In the nineties, most governments cracked down on their opposition (Islamic and secular) and undid the small democratic reforms that they implemented in the eighties.

Today, in the beginning of the 21^st century and a new millennium, the Islamic world is in crisis. Open, and often violent, confrontations are the norm between Islamists and secularists, and between government loyalists and opponents. There is a lot at stake. The political future of these countries, more than 55 countries with 1.2 billion inhabitants, is at stake, but so is peace and stability in these countries and all over the world.

The old methods of oppression are simply outdated. More than 50% of the population of Muslim countries is under 30 years old. They did not witness colonization, and do not care about the independence struggle. They are highly educated, they speak several languages, and they watch CNN and al-Jazeera. Many of them even have access to the internet. They see how other people live, in terms of prosperity and freedom, and they want the same. They watch other peoples vote and elect their new leaders, while they are stuck with the same rulers for what seems like eternity. The new generation is fed up with the status quo. Change is inevitable. The only question that remains is: What kind of change?

We, as Muslims living in this century, have to find answers to these critical questions:

4. How do we make laws? And how do we make sure that those laws serve the interests of the majority of the people?

5. How can we guarantee that the rights of the minorities are preserved and protected?

Most of all, we must learn to live with differences of opinions, encourage diversity, and benefit from the opinions and experiences of everyone. Differences of opinions, including in political matters, are normal and can be healthy. Even the Sahabas and the early Muslim scholars had diverging opinions. All the scholars used to say: “this is my opinion, and God knows best”, because they realized that their opinions could be wrong. Since the Prophet did not appoint a ‘successor’ and since we do not have a religious hierarchy, there is no spokesman for Islam. There is no one person or institution that we can go back to to resolve our disputes or differences.

We must find an acceptable way to resolve political differences without resorting to violence and intimidation. In my humble opinion, there are only two ways to resolve political differences: the first is to fight with arms and guns and let the winner rule. This is the way of Qabeel, and the way that we have been ruled for the last 1400 years. This way automatically leads to unspeakable violence, destruction, and fear, and is clearly against Islam. The other way is through dialogue, debate and discussions. Allah (swt) ordered his Prophet to: “call to the path of your Lord through wisdom and good advice and do not argue with them except in the best of manners”. If we are ordered to deal with the non-Muslims in this manner, then we surely can treat other fellow Muslims with dignity, respect and tolerance.

This is clearly the Islamic path, but one question remains. What do we do if we have tried dialogue and debates, and no consensus emerged, as is often the case in political matters and disputes. Do we then turn to violence and shutting down the opposition, or do we simply go with the will and wishes of the majority? I would argue that in such cases, going with the majority makes much more sense because the majority has a much bigger chance of being correct. It is time that we allow the people to rule themselves and trust that majority rule is always better than minority rule. At the same time, the rights of the minorities must be protected, because there is a chance they could be right and become the majority of tomorrow. Ultimately, the people must be the judge if we want to protect and safeguard the interests of our nations. Neither secularism nor Islam can be imposed on the people.

I hope that this great gathering of Muslim scholars and intellectuals would help find the proper answers to these questions from within Islam, so that Muslims can move forward and progress without having to give up our religious and moral character.