"A man was stopped by the police around 2 AM. The officer asked him where he was going at that time of night.The man replied, 'I'm on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late.'The officer then asked, 'Really? Who's giving that lecture at this time of night?'The man replied, 'Mmmmh, that would be my wife, sir.'"
"Even if, let's say, one of the several pairs of presidential candidates have won the election by gaining more than fifty percent of the vote, there are still more than forty percent of people who did not vote for them, or in other words, do not agree with them. It means that—although those who have won the election stated that they would be the good leader of all parties—there are still parties who—yet don't hate them as personally and according to the rules of the game should admit the winner—are ideologically, politically, and even morally, disagree with them. It is one of the reasons why democracy is always oppositional. As long as those in opposition do so within the framework of recognition of individual and group rights and as citizens and ultimate control by the people of the political system, their actions are still considered legal," said Jasmine while going through the Youth Monument at the entrance to Kebayoran Baru subdistrict in South Jakarta."Not all flowers are pleasing to the eye, not all oranges taste sweet, not all what we consider good for ourselves is good for everyone, and so, not all opposition is evil. From an Islamic perspective, in its history, Esposito and Voll reveal that Islamic activist movements challenge some regimes and support others. The political interests of Islamic revivalist groups may lead them into revolutionary opposition to existing governments, or such movements may participate in the existing political system as opposition movements. In some cases, Islamist movements are part of the government or are themselves the ruling force in the political system. This broad spectrum provides four different general situations within which Islamic revivalism and democratization interact. These are Islamic activism as revolutionary opposition to the existing political system; legal or cooperating opposition operating within the existing political system; active participation in government in alliance or coalition with other political forces; and the controlling force in the existing political system. The current experience in each of these situations shapes both the nature of emerging democratic ideals in the Islamic world and the developing Islamically influenced new political orders. Democratization in Muslim societies involves all of the broader issues, present in all societies, of defining and creating democratic political systems.All Muslims did not always agree with their rulers and, according to Esposito and Voll, Muslim societies have traditions of opposition similar to all other societies. Such experiences go back to the very earliest days of Islam, in the time of the Prophet (ﷺ) in the early seventh century. The experience of the community of believers during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ), set patterns that many later Muslims view as normative. Not only did these experiences set precedents for Muslim beliefs and practices regarding the nature of the law, the state, and the community, but they also created precedents for Islamic concepts of opposition that are part of the heritage available to contemporary Muslims. Because of the specific experiences and historical development of the Islamic community (or ummah), Muslims have concepts and teachings that apply to many different contexts for opposition.The ummah began as a persecuted minority in the seventh-century Arabian city of Mecca, and their message was a firm challenge to the whole political and belief system of the existing dominant elite of Mecca. Then, when the Prophet (ﷺ) and the sahabah moved to the city of Yathrib, which came to be called Medina, they defined a 'constitution' for a pluralistic society. Finally, with the success of the Prophet's (ﷺ) mission and the subsequent expansion of the Islamic community and state, Muslims had to define what was allowable diversity and what opposition represented sedition. This diversity of experiences provides the basis for an effective repertoire of concepts defining legitimate disagreement and opposition within the community.In the first years after the beginning of the revelations to the Prophet (ﷺ) in Mecca, the number of the sahabah grew slowly. As time went on, the Muslims were harassed and those without powerful relatives to protect them were often attacked and persecuted. The Islamic message represented a major challenge to the existing social and political order. However, the Muslim group did not engage in violent warfare or conflict and, instead, utilized the methods of dawah or preaching, persuasion, and conversion in response to the hostility of the majority. When the Muslims moved as a group to the neighboring city of Medina, they represented a significant power grouping within a pluralist context. The new context was defined by an agreement that has come to be called, in Islamic history, the 'constitution of Medina.' It outlines the rights and procedures for conflict resolution and community action among Muslims (both from Mecca and Medina) and non-Muslims. Modern Muslims argue that this document and the experience in Medina provide the precedents for a pluralistic sociopolitical system in accord with Islamic traditions and revelation.The 'classical' Muslim society of the centuries following The Prophet's (ﷺ) death provides the context within which the formal definition of Islamic law, the Sharia, took place. It is in the context of an Islamic majority that the basic concepts and symbols of the Islamic political heritage developed. It was in this era that the ideas of consensus (ijma), consultation (shurah), and ijtihad were operationally defined. Also, during these years the concepts more specifically related to the issues of political opposition developed. These provide an important heritage for contemporary Islamic thinkers and leaders as they work with the issues of dealing with opposition in the present age of global pressures for democratization.This broad heritage of a more formalized body of Islamic traditions and the law itself provided a foundation for the development of a concept of a privileged legal order above the rulers and governments, by which those leaders could be judged. Islamic law, in this sense, represented a "constitutional" order for Muslim societies. It was a set of fundamental precepts that most people within the political society accepted as legitimate and authoritative. In the modern era, such fundamental principles have been defined in a variety of ways, with some thinkers concentrating on the basic sources, the Quran and the Sunnah, and others utilizing the whole legal corpus of the Sharia as defined by medieval scholars. However, the idea that the basic principles of Islam represent a 'constitution' for Muslim societies is affirmed by a broad spectrum of thinkers.Mohammed Abed al-Jabri suggests that Democracy today is not merely a history subject, it is also a basic necessity for the modern human being who is no longer a mere figure, but a citizen whose identity is defined by a great number of rights. These are democratic rights, such as the right to choose rulers, to monitor their con duct and to depose them; the right to freedom of speech, to hold meetings and form parties, unions, and societies; the right to education and work; the right to equal opportunities in all fields, political, economic, etc. Therefore, democracy should be viewed not as a process that may be applied in one society or another, but as an essential process to be estab lished and applied. It is the only atmosphere wherein the rights of citizen ship can be enjoyed by the people, on the one hand, while it enables the rulers to enjoy the legitimacy that justifies their rule, on the other.Democracy is exercised in society, and society is not merely a number of individuals; it is a multitude of relations, interests, groups, contentions, and rivalries. Hence, democracy is a sound and positive method to regulate relations inside the society in a rational manner, directing the struggle towards the advancement of society as a whole, within the citizen’s enjoyment of his rights.The democratic legitimacy, today, is the only acceptable legitimacy; there is no alternative to it. The revolutionary legitimacy, which called for the deferment of political democracy, on the pretext of giving priority to other objectives, in preparation for ‘real democracy’, has failed in realiz ing those objectives. Whether that failure was caused by internal factors or by foreign intervention, the only conclusion today is the assertion of the need for democracy as a right that cannot be suspended or compromised by any party. Any objectives posed by the state today cannot be put above the ‘rights of the human being and citizen’. On the contrary, all objectives must stem from these rights and be in their service. The so-called histori cal legitimacy claimed by some rulers is a thing of the past; namely, it is no longer capable of justifying itself in the present age. It might be justified only if it were to conjoin itself to democratic legitimacy and adapt to its rulings. This is its only hope of survival.On the other hand, viewing democracy as a principle, or a system whereby man enjoys his citizenship rights, gives it precedence over chan nels and institutions wherein these rights are exercised.The question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy has been a puzzle for some and a source of frustration for others. Religion has re-entered politics in many ways in most parts of the world. Historical markers for this resurgence include the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the attempts to develop a local responsible government in Algeria. Although politically active Islam has received the lion’s share of media and policy attention, it is not alone in experiencing renewed political engagement. Catholicism was critical in the overthrow of the communist regime in Poland; Buddhism is politically engaged in Sri Lanka; conflict between religious groups in India shapes political agendas there; and Pentecostal Protestants have entered the political realm, starting in the United States in the early 1980s.The unexpected resurgence of religion and the re-entry of religion into politics, which began in the last quarter of the twentieth century and has been accelerating since have made it urgently necessary to describe the political philosophy and system of governance that arises from the Qur’an and an examination of Al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya, the life of the Prophet (ﷺ). A systematic exposition of Islamic politics grounded in the Qur’an is made all the more necessary by the current debate in the West about Islam and human rights and the ability of Western democracies to incorporate significant Muslim minority communities. The question asked, ‘Is Islam compatible with democracy? Is Islam compatible with human rights?’ Some reactions make it clear that they consider Islamic human rights or Islamic democracy to be oxymoronic. The relationship between religion and polity in Muslim societies has been a focus of debate among scholars of Islam. Some view Islam as simply a religion without the right to govern or to order the daily affairs of human life. Others, however, view Islam as not only a religion but also a system and social order encompassing all spheres of human life, including the state and the law. They base their argument on the Qur’an and point out the political connotations of many of the Qur’anic terms such as mulk (domination), ummah (nation), and other terms with political connotations. For example, the Arabic word sultan, which is repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an, is an abstract noun meaning authority and rule and was used from the early times of Islam to denote government. Similarly, the term hukm (to govern and to judge) and its derivations such as ‘governor(s), ruler(s) and judge(s)’ appear in the Qur’an, explicitly more than 250 times and each has its political connotation.Islamic Law does not separate religion from daily life, religion from politics; politics from morals; or morals from the state. In Islamic Law, the activity of individuals and their relation to the state have metaphysical and religious bases. Islam is a system for practical human life in all its aspects. Islam professes an ideal and convincing concept that expounds the relationship between the Creator and the creations, the universe, all of life, and humankind. It expounds the nature of the universe and determines the position of humanity in this universe as well as the ultimate objectives for humanity. It includes the doctrines and practical organizations that emanate from and depend upon this ideal, and make it a reality reflecting upon the everyday life of human beings.Given that the Islamic conception of life involves coordination and harmonization between the body and the soul, it is only reasonable to expect that a very close relationship should have been established between religion and politics, between the mosque and the citadel. On the one hand, Islam deals with the fullness of humanity, as it exists in reality, not treating humanity as an intellectual concept. In contrast with Idealism, Positivism, and similar notions, Islam does not deal with propositions of no practical reality. On the other hand, Islam does not view human beings as spirit alone or as matter alone. Humans are not pure minds but integrated physical, mental, and spiritual beings whose faculties are part of a unified, functional, and responsible whole.Islamic social order is based on ‘the universal principle of human brotherhood and it endeavors to secure happiness, prosperity, and goodness for both the individual and society. There is no place for class war of any kind between individuals and society in this system.’ In its social system, Islam is communal, prefers a social life, and demands worship in a collectivity—a congregation in which every person turns towards one ultimate authority, one direction, and one center. For example, fasting for one month at the same time in all parts of the globe, and performing the pilgrimage to Mecca at the same time as one of the principal duties of all Muslims. It also places emphasis on strictly personal responsibility and does not forget the development of the individual, and yet it organizes all individuals into a single whole: the Muslim community. The same Law regulates the affairs of the universe, life, and humankind whatever the class or wherever the country. Moreover, the ruler enters the office only by free election and then takes an oath for which he is responsible before the people.About the relationship between Islam and politics, Sayyid Qutb and Abu al-A‘la Mawdudi, both pointed out that Islam, by its very nature, is a ‘political religion’. Scholar and judge ‘Ali Abd al-Raziq states ‘I do not believe that the Islamic Law is merely spiritual’. [...] Islam is a legislative religion. The application of Islamic Law is obligatory on Muslims. This is the command of Allah to them all. [...] The Muslims must establish a government to carry on this burden. Allah does not impose upon Muslims a specific type or form of government, but they are free to choose what is better for the welfare of their society at any time.’ Earlier exegetes such as Ibn Kathir, in his commentaries upon Qur’anic verse Sura An-Nisa (4):59, points out ‘the sovereign is Allah, He alone is the legislator’. The contemporary scholar of al-Azhar, Muhammad al-Ghazali, emphasised that ‘Allah is the only Legislator and that the nation (ummah) must establish a government of consultation (shurah)’. According to al-Qurtubi, ‘there is no difference among the Muslim scholars (Imams) on that Allah is the Legislator and that there must be a State’. Similarly, al-Mawardi asserts that ‘leadership is prescribed to succeed the prophethood as a means of protecting the religion and managing the affairs of this world. There is a consensus of opinion that the person who discharges the responsibilities of this position (leadership) must take on the contract of leadership of the ummah.’Then, what is the Islamic view of Sovereignty and the Constitution? From the perspective of international law, the sovereignty of a state is the core of its identity. In Islamic Law, sovereignty is the characteristic of the divine whose rule is immediate, and whose commands, as in the Qur’an, embody dan guide the law and constitution of the nation and the state.One could argue that the Qur’an and sunnah are the sources of jurisprudence ( fiqh) and expressions of the shari‘ah. Sayed Khatab and Gary D. Bouma suggest that Islamic jurisprudence is only a personal opinion concerning interpretations of the shari‘ah. Muslims have agreed on the shari‘ah but not on the rulings of jurisprudence ( fiqh). The legal implication of this is that government in Islam is bound by a Constitution that is divinely inspired and that the Muslim community agrees that this is the case. Therefore, government in Islam is not a kind of absolute government, nor it is an autocracy or an authoritarian form of government; it is a government limited to a Constitution. Scholars of politics maintain that ‘limitation of governmental power, in regulating the affairs of the people, is a great principle of constitutional rule. The methods and the means which explain these limitations are called constitutional polity’.That the sovereignty belongs to Allah alone is not necessarily that Allah descends Himself to govern, but sent down His law to govern. Here, the authority is the law, and the rule is but the rule of law. In Islam administration and government exist to facilitate the application of law. The duty of government is to facilitate the application of law. The limitation of government to the law makes the notion of theocracy inapplicable. In Islamic view of the state, the person or persons at the helm of affairs are not regarded as a specific class divinely elevated or set aside from the common people. They do not rule in the place of Allah, but merely interpret and apply the law given to them by Allah, laws which are available and known to all Muslims. They are special neither in themselves nor in the laws they interpret and apply. Nor are they clergy in the sense of Western theocracies, which are clergy-controlled absolutist governments. In short, the characteristics of theocracy, and the like of this word group, do not apply to the government in Islam.From these points of view, it is clear to see the following characteristics: the system of government in Islam is compatible with democracy, and both systems contain substantial elements of similarity. The difference between the two systems—if interpreted on a religious basis—also supports those elements that are similar to democracy: government in Islam is Constitutional; Islamic government is not theocratic or autocratic; changes in the form of government will not change the Islamic identity of the state, as long as the government facilitates the ordinances of the law. For example, in Indonesia, the Department of Religion was formed to facilitate and handle these laws and needs. Therefore, the idea that Kantor Urusan Agama (the Office of Religious Affairs) is a place for marriage registration services for all religions is an inaccurate view.What about the form of government, organs, and functions of the state from an Islamic perspective? We'll talk about it in the next episode, bi 'idznillah."While taking a break, Jasmine sang,Allah, You're the Source of life and You're the Source of truthTo obey You, I strive and my aim is pleasing YouAllah, You are the only One, Your promises always trueYou don't need anyone, but we're all in need of You *)
Citations & References:
- Sayed Khatab & Gary D. Bouma, Democracy In Islam, 2007, Routledge
- Mohammed Abed al-Jabri, Democracy, Human Rights and Law in Islamic Thought, 2009, Centre for Arab Unity Studies
*) "Radhitubillahi Rabba" written by Bara Kherigi & Maher Elzein
