Islam has its own paradigm of knowledge, which contains its own religious, economic, and political terminologies. One of the essential Islamic political concepts is shura, or mutual consultation. The importance of shura has been emphasized in the Qur'an with a chapter that holds the name Ash-Shura. Allah, the Almighty, says,
(And those who respond to their Lord and keep up Prayer and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.) (Ash-Shura 42:38)
Moreover, Allah ordered Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to consult with believers,
(It was by the mercy of Allah that you was lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if you had been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when you are resolved, then put your trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).) (Aal `Imran 3:159)
Models of Shura in Islamic History
The Islamic history is rich enough to propose a variety of political mechanisms for leadership. After the death of the Prophet in 632 CE, each of the four Righteously Guided Caliphs used a different political mechanism to assume imarah, or presidency.
The first Caliph was selected by having Muslim figures gathered in a place called Saqifah (i.e., penthouse) to choose a new leader of Muslims. They unanimously selected Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (May Allah be please with him) as the first Caliph. Muslims who were not present were asked to pay homage to Abu Bakr, which they did.
After two years, just before his death in 634 CE, Abu Bakr appointed `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) as his successor, without any protest from the Companions. `Umar was called Amir Al-Mu'minin, or Commander of the Faithful.
`Umar even developed new political techniques to reach a more just system of election for his successor. He formed a commission of six prominent Companions to choose the next Caliph from among themselves. The members of the commission were `Ali ibn Abi Talib, `Uthman ibn `Affan, `Abdur-Rahman ibn `Awf, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, Az-Zubayr ibn Al-`Awam, and Talhah ibn `Ubayd Allah (may Allah be pleased with them all).
The Companion `Abdur-Rahman ibn `Awf chose to withdraw from nomination and to act rather as a moderator of the election process.
He began his task by interviewing each member of the commission separately. He asked them for whom they would cast their votes. When Ali was asked, he said for `Uthman. `Uthman named `Ali, Az-Zubayr named `Ali or `Uthman, and Sa`d named `Uthman.
Afterward, `Abdur-Rahman extended his consultation work beyond the Elite and went to consult other popular leaders to get a sense of the public opinion in Madinah, which was largely in favor of `Uthman. He arrived at the conclusion, after four days of consultations, that the majority of the people favored the election of `Uthman. On the fourth day after the death of Umar on November 11, 644 CE (Muharram 5, AH 24), `Uthman was declared officially as the third Caliph.
`Uthman was the second person, after `Umar, to offer his pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr and the first person to pledge allegiance to `Umar.
`Ali ibn Abi Talib was the fourth Caliph, remaining in power from 656 to 661 CE. After the assassination of `Uthman, Muslims gathered at the Mosque of the Prophet on June 18, 656 CE (Dhul-Hijjah 19, AH 35) — the election day — to choose the next Caliph. Initially, `Ali refused to accept the Caliphate. However, urged by notable Companions as well as the people of Madinah, he finally agreed to hold the position.
So, within 24 years after the death of the Prophet, the Islamic State witnessed four Caliphs chosen using four different mechanisms, all of which were transparent and representative of the opinion of the general public.
Common Grounds Between Shura and Democracy
There is an argument among some small minority of Muslims about the validity of democracy as a modern political mechanism and whether it is congruent with Islamic jurisprudence. This needs a short discussion.
Democracy, like any other political mechanism, aims to reach the optimum justness in society, and Islam does not press on Muslims any certain political methodology of electing their president or emir. One can demonstrate this by relating how four different political methodologies were approved by the best Companions of the Prophet within 24 years of his death, when Muslims numbered less than one million people and concentrated in one geographic area. Nowadays, there are about 1.5 billion Muslims in 57 countries (which occupy one quarter of the globe), more than 14 centuries after the death of the Prophet. They should have no problem accepting this modern political mechanism of election called democracy.
Muslims, in general, are so enthusiastic about democracy because they hope they will have a fair representation in political life. This is clear as some Islamist political activists formed parties in Kuwait, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc.
Challenges Ahead
In summary, Muslims are facing three challenges to reform:
1. Dictatorship and oppression that do not allow for a democratic process or any kind of social mobility. In some cases, Western governments tried to sabotage any democratic process in certain countries just because some Muslim parties won. In his book Islam and Democracy, John Esposito wrote,
In Algeria and Turkey, following electoral successes by parties thought to be religiously threatening to the existing political regimes, the Islamic political parties were restricted legally or suppressed.
2. The support of Western superpowers to dictatorships in Muslim countries over decades to serve their own imperial interests — regardless of the level of ensuring human rights in these countries — not only by building strong relationships with totalitarian regimes, but even by enhancing their images too. For instance, Freedom House 2009 Report stated that "the situation for journalists in Tunisia is one of the worst in the Arab world." However, because the Tunisian regime has strong ties with the EU, it has not faced the same kind of intense criticism from the US or EU that is directed to other Arab states according to the same report.
3. The accusation by Western — or secular, Westernized — writers that Muslims lack any democratic sense, which oftentimes in practice becomes a green light for dictatorships to oppress their citizens without any international pressure.
Dictatorships in the Islamic World represent the worst examples of any secular political system and are found only 5 countries out of 57 considered free according to the Freedom House ratings. As a result of the lack of experience with participatory democracy caused by the long history of oppression by totalitarian regimes in the Islamic World, it is not strange to find that some Muslims have negative reactions toward democracy. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, things became drastically worse, and now the local, state-run media has put forth all its efforts to disseminate such concepts as that democracy made a bloody Iraq, which means that freedom of expression and democracy equal chaos.
The democratic process as a political mechanism and the idea that people freely choose their representatives and leaders could find its roots in the Islamic civilization, because, regardless of whether the political mechanism is shura or democracy, practically Muslims should have no objections as long as the society attains optimum justice, which is a high goal of Islam as a religion.
Rebuilding trust between the West and the Muslim World is unlikely to happen unless the West, creatively, resolves the above-mentioned trinity of political backwardness.
Dr. Osama Kadi is the co-founder and president of Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS) — a non-profit organization registered in the US — in Washington DC. He served as an adjunct professor of macroeconomics and microeconomics at the Dearborn campus of Davenport University and at the University of Michigan. Kadi is interested in media, economics, and politics.
(And those who respond to their Lord and keep up Prayer and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.) (Ash-Shura 42:38)
Moreover, Allah ordered Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to consult with believers,
(It was by the mercy of Allah that you was lenient with them (O Muhammad), for if you had been stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And when you are resolved, then put your trust in Allah. Lo! Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).) (Aal `Imran 3:159)
Models of Shura in Islamic History
The Islamic history is rich enough to propose a variety of political mechanisms for leadership. After the death of the Prophet in 632 CE, each of the four Righteously Guided Caliphs used a different political mechanism to assume imarah, or presidency.
The first Caliph was selected by having Muslim figures gathered in a place called Saqifah (i.e., penthouse) to choose a new leader of Muslims. They unanimously selected Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (May Allah be please with him) as the first Caliph. Muslims who were not present were asked to pay homage to Abu Bakr, which they did.
After two years, just before his death in 634 CE, Abu Bakr appointed `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) as his successor, without any protest from the Companions. `Umar was called Amir Al-Mu'minin, or Commander of the Faithful.
`Umar even developed new political techniques to reach a more just system of election for his successor. He formed a commission of six prominent Companions to choose the next Caliph from among themselves. The members of the commission were `Ali ibn Abi Talib, `Uthman ibn `Affan, `Abdur-Rahman ibn `Awf, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, Az-Zubayr ibn Al-`Awam, and Talhah ibn `Ubayd Allah (may Allah be pleased with them all).
The Companion `Abdur-Rahman ibn `Awf chose to withdraw from nomination and to act rather as a moderator of the election process.
He began his task by interviewing each member of the commission separately. He asked them for whom they would cast their votes. When Ali was asked, he said for `Uthman. `Uthman named `Ali, Az-Zubayr named `Ali or `Uthman, and Sa`d named `Uthman.
Afterward, `Abdur-Rahman extended his consultation work beyond the Elite and went to consult other popular leaders to get a sense of the public opinion in Madinah, which was largely in favor of `Uthman. He arrived at the conclusion, after four days of consultations, that the majority of the people favored the election of `Uthman. On the fourth day after the death of Umar on November 11, 644 CE (Muharram 5, AH 24), `Uthman was declared officially as the third Caliph.
`Uthman was the second person, after `Umar, to offer his pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr and the first person to pledge allegiance to `Umar.
`Ali ibn Abi Talib was the fourth Caliph, remaining in power from 656 to 661 CE. After the assassination of `Uthman, Muslims gathered at the Mosque of the Prophet on June 18, 656 CE (Dhul-Hijjah 19, AH 35) — the election day — to choose the next Caliph. Initially, `Ali refused to accept the Caliphate. However, urged by notable Companions as well as the people of Madinah, he finally agreed to hold the position.
So, within 24 years after the death of the Prophet, the Islamic State witnessed four Caliphs chosen using four different mechanisms, all of which were transparent and representative of the opinion of the general public.
Common Grounds Between Shura and Democracy
There is an argument among some small minority of Muslims about the validity of democracy as a modern political mechanism and whether it is congruent with Islamic jurisprudence. This needs a short discussion.
Democracy, like any other political mechanism, aims to reach the optimum justness in society, and Islam does not press on Muslims any certain political methodology of electing their president or emir. One can demonstrate this by relating how four different political methodologies were approved by the best Companions of the Prophet within 24 years of his death, when Muslims numbered less than one million people and concentrated in one geographic area. Nowadays, there are about 1.5 billion Muslims in 57 countries (which occupy one quarter of the globe), more than 14 centuries after the death of the Prophet. They should have no problem accepting this modern political mechanism of election called democracy.
Muslims, in general, are so enthusiastic about democracy because they hope they will have a fair representation in political life. This is clear as some Islamist political activists formed parties in Kuwait, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc.
Challenges Ahead
In summary, Muslims are facing three challenges to reform:
1. Dictatorship and oppression that do not allow for a democratic process or any kind of social mobility. In some cases, Western governments tried to sabotage any democratic process in certain countries just because some Muslim parties won. In his book Islam and Democracy, John Esposito wrote,
In Algeria and Turkey, following electoral successes by parties thought to be religiously threatening to the existing political regimes, the Islamic political parties were restricted legally or suppressed.
2. The support of Western superpowers to dictatorships in Muslim countries over decades to serve their own imperial interests — regardless of the level of ensuring human rights in these countries — not only by building strong relationships with totalitarian regimes, but even by enhancing their images too. For instance, Freedom House 2009 Report stated that "the situation for journalists in Tunisia is one of the worst in the Arab world." However, because the Tunisian regime has strong ties with the EU, it has not faced the same kind of intense criticism from the US or EU that is directed to other Arab states according to the same report.
3. The accusation by Western — or secular, Westernized — writers that Muslims lack any democratic sense, which oftentimes in practice becomes a green light for dictatorships to oppress their citizens without any international pressure.
Dictatorships in the Islamic World represent the worst examples of any secular political system and are found only 5 countries out of 57 considered free according to the Freedom House ratings. As a result of the lack of experience with participatory democracy caused by the long history of oppression by totalitarian regimes in the Islamic World, it is not strange to find that some Muslims have negative reactions toward democracy. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, things became drastically worse, and now the local, state-run media has put forth all its efforts to disseminate such concepts as that democracy made a bloody Iraq, which means that freedom of expression and democracy equal chaos.
The democratic process as a political mechanism and the idea that people freely choose their representatives and leaders could find its roots in the Islamic civilization, because, regardless of whether the political mechanism is shura or democracy, practically Muslims should have no objections as long as the society attains optimum justice, which is a high goal of Islam as a religion.
Rebuilding trust between the West and the Muslim World is unlikely to happen unless the West, creatively, resolves the above-mentioned trinity of political backwardness.
Dr. Osama Kadi is the co-founder and president of Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS) — a non-profit organization registered in the US — in Washington DC. He served as an adjunct professor of macroeconomics and microeconomics at the Dearborn campus of Davenport University and at the University of Michigan. Kadi is interested in media, economics, and politics.
