Now we shall be discussing the eighth point
of my article “Islam and the State- A Counter Narrative” which is related to democracy.
In the narrative of the traditional scholarship, democracy has been seen as an unwelcome development,
one which they have had to accept unwillingly.
They do not accept it in principle.
The people who are today seen pursuing the democratic struggle or struggling by forming political parties,
only consider it a means to achieve their goals.
They haven’t accepted democracy as a principle of governance.
Their hearts are not open to it.
Even if some people accept democracy in principle, they are very few and far between.
It is commonly believed that democracy is a Western contribution to humanity.
But I have written that “Centuries before the thinkers of the present age,
the Quran had declared: Amruhum shoora baynahum“;
‘The affairs of the Muslims are run on the basis of their mutual consultation.’ (42:38).
These are just three words but the Quran has marvelously conveyed the whole idea through them.
It means that the collective system of Muslims is neither based on the will of one person
or family nor on the will of anyone wielding the gun.
And now even the Almighty says that He will not interfere.
The affairs of Muslims will be based on their views.
They have to form their own collective system.
What also needs to be kept in mind is that any political rule can be established on two grounds only.
First, since God is the creator of everything, He can appoint any person as the ruler.
There can be no opposition to this appointment.
The second way is that we choose a ruler by mutual consultation.
The decision of the first kind reached its culmination with the appointment of Muhammad (pbuh) as God’s Messenger.
That order has now ended.
Now, only one legitimate and legal method is left according to the demands of knowledge and reason.
Please bear in mind that even this method is accepted due to compulsions.
The reason for is that political rule is not established for the sake of frivolity.
It is established to help the oppressed. It is our requirement to contain anarchy.
Otherwise, what is our gain in earning money and then paying taxes to support a government,
which can then carry out excesses against us?
It is a necessary evil that we accept to achieve some noble objectives.
So, the decision to appoint a ruler can either be taken by us or by God.
God will not appoint anyone now, because that tradition has ended.
Therefore, the people have to decide it now.
Now, if someone claims that a particular family, or a particular group,
such as the scholars or some pious people have this right to appoint a ruler,
let them produce a certificate of their authority.
The principle declared by the Almighty is “the collective affairs of Muslims are run on the basis of their mutual consultation” (42:37).
“This clearly meant that a Muslim government would be established through their consultation alone,
the norms of political society would be set by consultation,
everyone will have equal rights in this consultation,
whatever done through consultation will only be undone through consultation and
every individual will become part of the consultative process.
Moreover, if a decision cannot be reached through a consensus or total agreement,
then the opinion of the majority shall be accepted as the decision.”
If you break up the directive in Amruhum Shoora Baynahum, it encompasses all these points.
When you say that the system should run by mutual consultation, all these points are its logical corollaries.
I will not engage in a detailed discussion here as I have already discussed it in my book.
You should see that discussion in Meezaan and also go through my essay titled Amruhum Shoora Baynahum in my book Burhan.
In this essay, I have not only discussed the meaning of this directive and its application,
but also demonstrated how the rightly guided Caliphate functioned in accordance with this directive.
I have presented a very novel perspective in that essay.
“This clearly meant that a Muslim government would be established through their consultation alone,
the norms of political society would be set by consultation,
everyone will have equal rights in this consultation,
whatever done through consultation will only be undone through consultation and
every individual will become part of the consultative process.
Moreover, if a decision cannot be reached through a consensus or total agreement,
then the opinion of the majority shall be accepted as the decision.”
This is precisely what democracy is.
“Thus, dictatorship is not acceptable in any case whether it is of a dynasty [which creates monarchies] or
of a group or of a national institution [I have written this word specially]…”
sometimes monarchies are also created in the name of democracy.
Dictatorship of “even religious scholars in the interpretation of issues related to religion and
Shariah, e.g. that of Iran” can never be acceptable.
By ‘group or national institution’ I mean institutions like the army, which possess the power of the gun.
Muslims will obviously have to understand and interpret the religious directives concerning their collective affairs and
determine what exactly are the directives they have been given.
They will also be faced with the question of legislation according to these directives.
For example, legislating on the matter of Jihad will involve interpreting the directives related to Jihad.
This interpretation is carried out by the experts in religious disciplines.
This process occurs the world over.
Economists will shed light on the matters related to economics.
But will their opinions and verdicts be accepted?
The decision to accept or reject these opinions rests with the elected representatives of the people.
The reason I have explained this is because even Allama Iqbal was confused over
whether the Parliament shall now acquire the right of Ijtihad that was previously held
by the Mujtahideen (qualified Muslim scholars) or not.
An important question raised here is that since our parliament is composed of a lot of uninformed people,
how can they be expected to perform Ijtihad?
They might not even be able to pronounce the word Ijtihad properly if they were asked to do so.
I have responded that there is no need to fall into this confusion.
No parliament ever performs Ijtihad. A parliament only adopts one among the many Ijtihads and enacts it as a law.
This is the actual job of the parliament.
Their job is to merely approve a view and a common man does the same in his life.
For example, you come across the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) on a certain issue,
a different opinion of Imam Shafai (ra) on the same issue and another opinion of someone.
It is the person who has to adopt one opinion. He may be illiterate and uninformed.
The parliament does the same thing.
It does not carry out Ijtihad but chooses one among the many Ijtihadaat and passes it as the law.
Because legislation is the right of the parliament.
A person does this in his personal affairs and the public representatives do this in the collective affairs.
Even in one’s personal matters,
one doesn’t become a judge over an expert’s expertise, but merely accepts it or rejects it.
Thus, “Dictatorship is not acceptable in any case whether it is of a dynasty or a of a group or of a national institution and
not even of religious scholars in the interpretation of issues related to religion and Shariah.
These scholars indeed have the right to present their views and express their opinions;
however, their view can only become a law for the people to follow
when the majority of the elected representatives accept it.”
This is the reason that when the Qur’an stated that
the collective affairs of Muslims are to be decided by their mutual consultation,
it did not put a restriction that only the pious people would be consulted or only the educated people would be consulted.
Let the educated people perform their duty, which is to educate the masses.
If the common people accept this education, well and good;
if they don’t accept it, then your jurisdiction ends here.
You cannot take any step beyond this.
Our most ancient thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle have made this very mistake.
They dreamed of an Aristocracy where people are ruled by the philosopher-kings.
This is not possible.
A government may only be established in two natural ways.
Either God will appoint it or the people will appoint it. And as the people are, so shall their government be.
If the consciousness of moral values is strong in the people, the government will be good.
If the educational standard improves among the people, the educational quality of the government will also improve.
A government is nothing but a manifestation of the existing realities.
No false dreams should be entertained about it.
“These scholars indeed have the right to present their views and express their opinions;
however, their view can only become a law for the people to follow when the majority of the elected representatives accept it.
In modern states, the institution of the parliament has been constituted for this very purpose.
It holds and should hold the final authority in the system of state.”
This authority is not vested in any Mujtahid; not even someone like Imam Abu Hanifah (ra), were he present in the world today.
Even if all the jurists unanimously give an opinion, it still will not hold authority.
This holds true for experts of any field.
Even the legal experts have to present their opinion before the parliament,
which ultimately has to accept it or reject it.
Once it is accepted, it will become a law.
But before this, it is merely an academic opinion, which everyone has a right to present.
“People do have a right to criticize the decisions of the parliament and to try to point out their mistakes.”
This question is often raised that what if the parliament takes a wrong decision and enacts a wrong law?
A lot of people even ask what if the parliament also legalizes homosexuality.
This will obviously happen only if all the people sitting in the parliament decide to agree with this.
What you need to find out is why did they agree?
Then you can criticize them, explain their mistake to them and present the correct point of view.
But no one has the right to rebel against the system.
It can be my opinion that the parliament has taken a completely foolish decision; an extremely wrong decision.
I will most certainly criticize it and try to get it transformed.
I will try to persuade the people, but if a law has been passed based on that decision,
then I shall also suffer its consequences.
One cannot revolt against it.
Whether it is the religious scholars or the judiciary, it cannot be above the parliament.
My whole argument is based on the Quranic principle of
“The affairs of the Muslims are run on the basis of their mutual consultation” (42:38).
It binds every individual and every institution to practically
submit to the decisions of the parliament even though they may differ with them rationally.
They surely do have the democratic right to disagree.
This is the only legitimate way to establish and run a government.
If any other way is adopted to set up this rule, then it will be illegal even though the forehead of its ruler glistens
with the signs of prostration or even if he is bestowed the title of Amir-ul-Muminin.”
You can understand why I have written the last sentence.
If someone were to proclaim that they have never missed the pre-dawn prayer, even then the rule remains illegitimate.
It is still said by our people that the United States terminated the government of Taliban in Afghanistan.
Our scholars and some of my close friends argued that the Taliban have a right to resist this onslaught.
I said it means that you have considered their government as a legitimate one.
Had that government been formed by the will of the Afghan people, it would have been a legitimate government.
Otherwise it was nothing more than an illegitimate government that usurped political power.
Let us accept for some time that an illegitimate government was brought to an end through an illegitimate intervention.
Why should I have any interest in this?
Even today the discourse is that the Taliban have a right in Afghanistan and they should be brought to the table;
that a dialogue should be held with them;
that they should be given a part in the government and should be included in the system.
But according to the well established principles of Islam and the world,
the people of Afghanistan should be given the right to choose their government and
the Taliban to present themselves before the people.
If the people elect them, all the disputes will be settled.
Thus, all this discussion is ignoring this basic principle.
And most often this is the reason for many misconceptions.
If you ask me what the position of Pakistan should be in this matter,
I would say the government of Afghanistan should be formed by the will of the people of Afghanistan.
Should only the people of Kashmir have the right of self-determination and not the people of Afghanistan?
I again reiterate that we get away with saying a lot of such things from a political lookout.
The solution in Afghanistan is very simple. Let our military say this;
let the world powers tell the Taliban to present themselves before the Afghan people for their approval.
Otherwise what they are doing is a rebellion.
Please say that let the elections must be held under the supervision of a neutral body; even a body trusted by the Taliban.
If they trust no one, let the elections be conducted under the join supervision of Muslims countries.
In any case, the road to power goes through the people.
If they crown you as their ruler, you can form the government.
This is the principle.
And all such matters should be decided on the basis of this principle.
It is only this way which is justified in setting up the rule of Islam and to run it;
not two or three ways as suggested by Shah Waliullah (ra) that a rule can also be established through
Isteelaa and Taghallub (Acquisition of authority by force, the investiture being regarded as fait accompli).
No doubt, it will get established in the sense that it is imposed on us due to our weakness,
but how will it be a legitimate rule?
Supporting an illegitimate rule and arguing for its rights it a clear violation of Islamic principles.
“This is the only legitimate way to establish and run a government.
If any other way is adopted to set up this rule,
then it will be illegal even though the forehead of its ruler glistens with the signs of prostration or
even if he is bestowed the title of Amir-ul-Muminin.”
To support an illegitimate government; to ally with an illegitimate government;
to argue for the rights of an illegitimate government;
these are clear violations of this principle.
What is the purpose of democracy if not settling differences between people?
For example, differences emerged between Scotland and Britain, with the former seeking separation from Britain.
Now, what is the solution? Is it the gun?
The only solution is the one adopted in the modern era.
The Qur’an too prescribes this very method to settle mutual differences in worldly affairs
i.e. Amruhum Shoora Baynahum.
Thus, wherever there is a lack of consensus in worldly affairs, the majority opinion should prevail.
This is the principle stance.
I always say the same about the Kashmir dispute.
If the Indian State were to ask my opinion, I would say what is the need to discuss this in the modern times?
The people should be asked what they want.
If they want to be with you, let them be with you and if they don’t want to be with you, let them be free.
This principle has been accepted the world over.
If such an issue is raised by the Tamils in India or let’s say in Baluchistan, what is the reason to be afraid?
We should ask the people what they want.
There is no need for a military action.
All such actions stem from refusing to accept the democratic principle even now.
The issue of Britain is also before you.
Their territory could have split, but they still conducted the referendum.
The same has happened in Australia also.
The issue in Australia was whether the Queen of Britain should continue her nominal rule over Australia or not.
So they have accepted this principle.
This principle has been established by the Qur’an.
If you refuse to accept this principle, then the matters are settled by the gun alone.
And that settlement is not based on reason and knowledge.
Now that these eight points have been discussed, there are only two more left to be discussed.