AHC/WI: Islamic Democracy

I'tikaf

I'tikaf

IOTL democracy emerged through the convergence of a multitude of different historical practices and customs. The Anglo-Saxon Witenagamot though not democratic (as in the modern sense of the word) was one such example. But it would give precedence to later forms of government involving elective assemblies even if didn't actually spawn the idea of Parliament. Parliament developed from a Royal Council centred around English Kings originally meant to be merely advisory in nature. Or at least this is what I have gleaned from reading through earlier threads on democracy.

I would like to ask how democracy (or a similar concept) would develop in an Islamic context. Would the Shurah be the basis on which an hypothetical Islamic! Parliament be based or would it come about via a tribal confederatopn in the Najd. And in what ways would it be different from Western Democracy in terms of structure, the idea of rights of man, etc...

Also Disclaimer: Democracy likely wouldn't develop in such a world or in the same way as in the West. This thread isn't about making some clone of Western Democracy emerge in the middle of the Arabian Wastes, this is actually asking how a similar concept would be developed within thr Islamic World or by it.
 

Falecius

We actually have historical examples of Muslim polities effectively ruled as "republics" of sorts, though usually with a nominal monarch at the head, and there are also "fringe" political theories within an Islamic framwork (mu'tazilites and kharijites) who argue for self-government of the community under divine Law (the classic study by P. Crone calls these people "anarchists" which is true in a technical sense). The latter theories were never fully applied but the "republican" systems mentioned above were sometimes based on ideologically similar premises (many were either Kharijite or Ismailite; but Sunni examples in Indonesia -Sulawesi IIRC - are also known).
So while, while not mainstream in historical practice, democracy has a demonstrable basis within Muslim traditional intellectual elaboration and governing practices at a small scale. Even the Sunni learned classes who mostly accepted absolute monarchy as a matter of fact, often insisted on at least notional consent of the governed, and a modicum of separation of power (legislative power was almost never believed to be within the purview of sultans, emirs, or even caliphs in principle).
What the Muslim world never developed (AFAIK) in pre-modern times was an institutional framework whereby the ruled could make their voice consistently heard collectively on scales beyond the local level, despite most Muslim political theorists agreeing that said voice should be taken into account.
 

John7755 يوحنا

@Falecius Yes, within Sunni jurisprudence, there is the concept of Tawheed al-Hakkimiyyah, a subsection of Tawheed ar-Rububiyyah (Allah is alone in rulership), which means that Allah alone is the legislator of laws and enactments. What this means is, no ruler or such has the right to create new legislation technically, only the right to make decisions and enforce existing legislative pronouncements. This opinion is very general across the Sunni Madhab and uniform in agreement. Thus, the idea of an absolute ruler who is able to change laws and make legislation, is rejected traditionally and those who do so of the past and today, perform itjihad and innovation/bidaa (though this does not mean that it is kufr akbar, it is in my view, a minor sin, but not one that removes you from Islam unless the ruler says that he himself is the hakm, thus Allah will be to him, not alone in hukm).

The Khawarij/Shurha had many democratic elements or egalitarian opinions, which I do not consider necessarily fringed or even deviant. Such as, the Khawarij phrase and view that the prince is simply a servant of the community. This in essence could be graphed onto the Islamic community as a whole, but less likely so, as this opinion was arrived at for reasons that the Islamic community could not come to agreement with. Namely, the Khawarij said these points as they held that Allah alone can contribute to the concept of the arbitration, there is no arbitrator aside from Allah. When Ali and Mu'awiyah engaged in dispute, the Khawarij sought to see a battle to decide the victor and thus Allah was the arbitrator, yet the compromise between the two sides, meant that the men had made themselves deciding factors in fate/arbitration and to the Khawarij committed shirk (polytheism) by adding partners to actions only Allah can make. The Khawarij also believed sincerely that Allah considered people in views that were not hierarchical, while the majority of the Muslim world and Islamic law dictates that Allah views individuals based upon their position and does not adhere to an egalitarianism.

Regardless, on the status of democracy within Islam according to jurisprudence of the early period and today, in short, it is permissible. The idea that one can elect a leader from among your community and allow them to be your representative, is an accepted practice. The ruling is not that every Muslim community must have a sultan and emir and such and never was such, the permissible nature of village councils and communes is an ancient concept, as is the ability of tribes to elect their chiefs or have their customs regarding succession. Despite this, the ineligibility of democracy in the western standard is that democracy in the west gives mankind the right to create legislation and thus breaks the tawheed and performs minor sins, that amount to loss of imaan (faith and standing with Allah). Thus, democracy wherein the people vote new laws or create this law or that law and or believes that because the majority believe that taxation of income is allowed, that this is correct; this is wholly rejected. If a person believes that this sort of system is a replacement for Allah's role or His Shariah, then this person is anathematized in my view, generally.

So, democracy that is permissible and accepted , is the idea that we as humans have the ability to elect our own leaders from the community and vote on some other minor issues, such as a new spending bill to build canals or public works, etc... However, the ability to vote on new legislation on what has been already Legislated, is to be rejected. Regardless, democracy existed int he Islamic world in the past and exists today, thus this is not an issue in regards to making a tl, we have examples on localities and also it is a topic that is widely discussed by the scholars.
 

John7755 يوحنا

Madhav Deval said:
@John7755 يوحنا
Are you aware what Shia views on this are?
Click to expand...

Depends upon the type of Shi'a. In terms of permissible status of local communes and tribes, I believe that Ja'fari fiqh allows this custom. However, the Shi'a still agree to the idea of Rububiyyah, in that the legislation is not something that men perform. However, for the Shi'a of general types, this is complicated by the Imamah, the Imams have what is called Wilayah at-Tawkwiniyyah, in that the Imams have been conferred by Allah the duty of control of all atoms in the universe and thus have the legislative powers distributed to them by Allah. Hence the concept that the Imam's infallible power dictates that their proclamation in statements within hadith are rulings that are not to be breached. Though, as far as I know, no Shi'a group engaged in a democracy like the west, only in the form of like the Khawarij, such as the Qarmatians, who elected their leaders.

The Shi'a also do not believe that the Shura council that chose Abu Bakr occurred. To them, the Qu'ran declared that Ali ibn abi Talib was the Caliph and his progeny. Thus, they reject one of the possible cases that can be interpreted as Islamic electoral processes. In their view, the Banu Taym clan (that of Abu Bakr and Ayesha) in alliance with the Banu Umayya (Utham ibn Affan and Mu'awiyah) and the Banu Adiy (Umar ibn al-Khattab) had conspired against Ali ibn abi Talib and his wife Fatimah and wrested control of the Caliphate, and afterwards, all but 3-4 of the companions of Muhammad (SAW) became apostates.
 

Falecius

snassni2 said:
Couldn't it have been developed if the election of the caliph was continued as in the Rashidun time?
Click to expand...
Well, the "election" of the Rashidun was not really democratic in any meaningful way, according to the traditional accounts. Abu Bakr's proclamation was hurried and not immediately agreed upon, 'Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr with the consent of the other Sahaba, Uthman was chosen among an extremely restricted group who also were his electors (plus an unelectable tie-breaker) picked by Umar, Ali's proclamation was... controversial to say the least.

When in the 1030s Abu Hasan al-Mawardi rationalised these accounts to make them juridical precedent, he initally argued that any free Muslim has a theoretical right to partake in the choice of the Caliph, only to immediately introduce a hierarchal approach whereby a small number of qualified and localised members of the community exercise what amounts to "virtual representation" on behalf of the entire Ummah, possibly reduced to the person of the incumbent Caliph alone (though he would need a second for an appointed successor who is close kin, on account of partiality).
In modern times, the attempt in the times of the Rashidun to establish rule by (albeit implicit) consent of the ruled through shura has been re-interpreted expansively instead, and nothing in Muslim tradition prevents that (AFAIK) as @John7755 يوحنا explains above very informatively (and entirely correctly from the traditional Sunni fiqh standpoint).
A pre-modern Islamic democracy would develop through democratic choice of what would amount to the executive branch (and possibly the judiciary; qadis were traditionally appointed, but I don't think it would be haram to have them elected instead, with qualifications of course), both bound to rule of law; but it would be outside the theoretical purview of any human authority to actually make laws (however, there's the interpretive authority, that in Islam rests generally on knowledge, not will of majority).
This is, by the way, roughly the constitutional reasoning behind the Islamic Republic of Iran institutional setup (with more complications due to the role of qualified law-interpreters who actually wield political power there, according to a revision of the Shi'a traditions - specifically of the Usuli school of Twelver Shia theology - on this point).
This is, of course, for forms of democracy that rest on a religious approach.
Others could argue that Islam enjoins ethical and even juridical norms for the community and individual believers, but has nothing to do with purely political matters such as how the community is actually to be governed - indeed the Qur'an is almost entirely silent, in normative terms, on any sort of political institution proper, when read at face value.
 
Last edited:

herkles

I am now wondering what an Islamic expy of Venice and the Venetian Republic would be like. Also where in the Islamic would such a city be best located?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top