Someone once asked if Islam harmonizes with democracy or not, and here is an article that is informative on the issue.
A Glimpse at the Political Philosophy of Islam
By
Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yezdi
If we want to make a balanced comparison between Islamic and other views in the field of polity and form of government we should make a review of the important issues in the philosophy of politics, and on every issue find out what is the view of Islam, comparing it with the other views. We must make a detailed investigation of the basic differences between them. Very briefly, we will now mention some issues and explain the views of Islam pertaining to them in order that it may be possible to make a comparison.
The first issue is the importance of social life. Islam, like the other schools of thought, emphasizes social life. But more than this it considers it a duty to attend to social problems and to struggle for the benefit of all human beings. Being indifferent to such problems is considered in Islam to be a grave sin. This attention is so important that it sometimes becomes necessary to spend all of one’s property and even to endanger one’s own life to save others from worldly and other-worldly afflictions and harms, from going astray and from spiritual corruption, and from misfortune in the next life. It is unlikely that any school of thought other than Islam has advanced this idea so far. Of course, we believe that none of the heavenly religions have any disagreement on basic principles and rules. Naturally, they hold this view in common with Islam.
The second issue is the necessity of law for social life, since no society can survive without rules and social regulations, for otherwise it would soon succumb to chaos, deterioration and destruction. The view of Islam on this matter is also clear and does not Stand in need of an explanation. We should however, mention two points. The first point is that from the perspective of Islam, the goal of law is not only to bring about social order and discipline, but beyond this to maintain social justice; because, firstly, without justice the order would not be durable and the masses of the people would not tolerate injustice and oppression for ever; and secondly, in a society not governed by justice most people would not have the opportunity for desired growth and development and hence, the goal of man’s creation and social life would not be realized.
Another point is that, from the Islamic viewpoint, social laws should be such as to prepare the ground and context for the spiritual growth and eternal felicity of the people. At the very least they should not be inconsistent with spiritual development, for, in the view of Islam, the life of this world is but a passing phase of the entire human life which despite its short duration, has a fundamental role in human destiny. That is, it is in this phase that with his conscious behaviour the human being should prepare for himself his everlasting felicity or wretchedness. Even if a law could maintain the social order in this world but would cause eternal misfortune for humans, from this Islamic view it would not be a desirable law, even if it were to be accepted by the majority.
The third issue is how and by whom the law should be legislated. The accepted theory in most current societies is that the laws should be legislated and approved by the people themselves or their representatives. Since the consensus of all the people or of their representatives is practically impossible, the view of the majority (even if merely half plus one) is the criteria for the validity of the law.
This theory, first of all, is based on the idea that the goal of law is to satisfy the people’s needs, not to provide that which would truly benefit them. Secondly, since it is impossible to have unanimous agreement, we should suffice with the opinion of the majority. However, the first idea mentioned is not accepted by Islam, for many people wish to satisfy their bestial instincts and temporary lusts without thinking of their disastrous consequences.
Usually the number of such people is at least one half plus one, so the social laws would be dictated by the desires of such people.
It is obvious that the schools which believe in a goal beyond animal lust and base desire will not be able to condone this idea.
With regard to the second idea, that is, the validity of the vote of the majority in the absence of unanimity, it should be said that only in absence of a deciding divine and intellectual criterion can the majority be the criterion for preferring an opinion. However, in the Islamic system there do exist such divine and intellectual criteria. In addition, usually a powerful minority, by using the facilities for widespread propaganda, has an important role in channelling the thoughts and beliefs of others, and in fact what is approved is only the desire of a limited but powerful minority, not the true desire of the majority or of all the people. Furthermore, if the criterion is that the people’s choice would be valid for themselves, why shouldn’t we also accept the choice of a minority as valid for itself, even if it would result in a type of autonomy? In this case, what would be the logical justification for governments to oppose the wishes of some social groups which they rule by force?!
From the perspective of Islam with regard to this problem, laws should be legislated in such a way that they procure the benefits of the members of the society, particularly of those who desire to improve themselves and to gain eternal felicity. It is obvious that such law should be legislated by one who has enough knowledge about the real and eternal benefits of humans, and, secondly, who does not sacrifice the benefits of others for his personal interests and vain desires. It is obvious that there is no one wiser than Almighty God, Who has no need of His servants or their works, and Who has provided divine legislation only for the sake of benefitting them. Certainly, the social laws described in the heavenly revealed books do not explicitly state all the social rules which are necessary for every time and place, but religious law does provide a general framework for the derivation of regulations necessary for changing conditions of time and place, and, at least by observing the limits delineated by this framework it may be possible to avoid falling into the deadly valley of eternal perdition.
The fourth issue is that of who should enforce social law.
Islam, like most other political schools, requires the existence of a State as a power which is able to prevent violations of the law, and the lack of the State is equivalent to the suspension of law, chaos, and the violation of the rights of the weak.
It is obvious that there are two fundamental qualifications for administrators of the law, particularly for the one at the top of the pyramid of power: first, sufficient knowledge of the law in order to prevent infringement of it due to ignorance; and second, self-control over his desires in order to prevent the intentional misapplication of the law. Other qualifications, like administrative acumen, courage, and so on, can be considered as supplementary requirements. Naturally, the ideal is that the administrator of the law should generally be without ignorance, selfishness, and other vices, and such a person is one who, in religious terminology, is called ma’sum (infallible). All Muslims believe in the infallibility of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon his progeny, and the Shi’ites also believe in the infallibility of the Imams, peace be upon them. In the absence of an infallible one, these criteria should be observed, to the extent possible, for the selection of the leader as well as for lower positions in the official hierarchy in a proportionate manner.
Basically, the basis of the thesis of Wiláyat-e faqih (lit., guardianship of the jurisprudent meeting all the requisite requirements) is the proposition that a person who is nearer to the station of infallibility should occupy the position of the infallible one, i.e. on top of the pyramid of power, in order that this position may be occupied by one with the best knowledge of the precepts and laws and their fundamental bases, one who has the most piety and self-control. By means of these two basic qualifications (jurisprudence and piety) it is at least possible that he will be less likely intentionally or unintentionally to transgress against the law of Islam.
Another point which may be raised here is that from an Islamic perspective no human has any intrinsic right to rule over another, even if he issues valid and just decrees, for all people, like other creatures, have been created and are the property of Almighty God, and no one may interfere with another’s property without his permission. A human being has no right even to use his own bodily parts in a manner contrary to God’s will and consequently he cannot allow others to do so. Hence, the only one Who Himself has an absolute right to govern and to depose of anyone and anything is Almighty God. Every authority and wiláyah should be from Him or at least with His sanction. It is obvious that Almighty God would never permit anyone to execute the law without having the necessary knowledge of His laws, or without there being a guarantee of the correctness of his deeds and obedience to the divine laws, or without piety and the necessary moral qualifications.
On the other hand, we know that except for the prophets and their selected successors, no one else was specifically designated by Almighty God to execute the law and to govern. So, people must try to find persons who resemble the prophets and the Ma’súmún (infallible ones) as closely as possible. It seems that the best way is first to select committed experts of religion (pious jurists), and then to allow them to select from among themselves the best one, for the experts may more correctly identify the best.
Such selection is safer from defects of an intentional or unintentional character.
It also has become clear that the political features of Islam derive from the basic elements of the world view of Islam and its view of man. That is, the emphasis on the just character of law and its harmony with human spiritual development derives from the view that God Almighty created all mankind in order that people may follow the way of development toward nearness to . God and eternal felicity by their meritorious conduct in life. The right of all humans to happiness and the enjoyment of the blessings of this world exists in order that all may advance on the way of their development in a better and speedier manner. The legislation of the divine laws and religious principles, whether they apply to the individual or society, is for determining the basic outlines of this path. The conditions of expertise in law and piety, in addition to other necessary administrative qualifications, is for securing the necessary conditions for the general development of the people, for reaching eternal felicity and for preventing intentional and unintentional deviation from the correct way of social life.
We are hopeful that God Almighty will grant all of us Ibis opportunity to thank Him for all His blessings, and for the blessing of His law and guidance toward the life of felicity which we seek.
Modern political theory exalts “the general will” Democratic government attempts to put that general will into practice by making law out of the policy voted for by «'the majority" (which need only be 51%) leaving null and void the will of the minority (which may be that of as many as 49% of the voters). The minority is thus not “free” at all, even though in some cases its will may be sensible, and in the circumstances right. But '«Government by the Will of the People" will never voluntarily strip off the sanctity and splendour with which it has endowed “the general will”, giving that concept precedence over all other material and spiritual values.
Islam, on the other hand, gives precedence to the Will of the Lord of this world, rather than to the uncontrolled inclinations and sentiments of a majority of humans. Islam refuses to strip the Godhead of control of the legislative and jurisdictional power Islam’s conception of Godhead and of divine government is wide enough to comprise everything that goes to make up human life everywhere on this planet. This makes Islam man’s unrivalled guardian. It demands total obedience to its statutes on the ground that these are God-given and that therefore no human being has a right to allow his own desires to dictate any action in breach of these statutes and rules of life.
How can God be proclaimed worthy of total commitment by people who arrange their lives on precepts deriving from other sources than God Himself? No person dare claim divine authority for a partner for God, nor substitute another lawgiver for Him. Islam’s aim is to champion truth and right in everything in human society, since truth does not specialise exclusively in social, political and financial matters but also clothes the stature of man himself in its most beautiful vestments.
The human physique is fearfully and wonderfully made. So are the rules and rights that govern human living. No-one can claim a complete knowledge of all the mysteries of man’s make-up, or of the complicated social structure it generates. For this structure comprises the specialised areas of the body and the spirit of all its individuals as well as of all their relationships with each other Nor dare anyone claim to be innocent of sin, of a shortcoming, a fault or an error. No-one is aware of all the elements which go to make up human happiness and welfare.
Despite all the devoted efforts of scientists to penetrate the mysteries of human being, the area they have succeeded in covering is still extremely limited. To quote Dr. Alexis Carrel again ("'Man, the Unknown" p.4): “'Mankind has made a gigantic effort to know itself. Although we possess the treasure of the observations accumulated by the scientists, the philosophers, the poets, and the great mystics of all times, we have grasped only certain aspects of ourselves. We do not apprehend man as a whole. We know him as composed of distinct parts. And even these parts are created by our methods. Each one of us is made up of a procession of phantoms, in the midst of which strides an unknowable reality.”
Without insight into the human make-up man cannot frame laws 100% suited to the human condition, nor justly cure the troubles that arise : witness the bewilderment of legislators, their constant alteration of their own statutes in face of today’s new problems and unexpected blind alleys. Motives of personal advantage, self-interest, profit, ambition, power, and even of environmental predilections, intrude to distort the legislators’ outlook consciously or unconsciously. Montesquieu said of legislation that “none is ever wholly objective and impartial, for the personal ideas and sentiments of the legislator influence his drafting”. Thus Aristotle, because he was jealous of Plato, influenced Alexander to denigrate his great predecessor.
Modern slogans of “Liberty and Equality” and “the Public Will” are empty words used by politicians to win support for their laws, laws which in fact represent the interests not of the masses but of the landowners and capitalists.
Henry Ford wrote of England, which boasts itself “the Mother of Democracy”. “We cannot forget the 1926 general strike or the way the government tried to break it with every means in its power. Parliament, tool of the capitalists, proclaimed the strike unconstitutional and illegal, and turned police and army out against the strikers with bullets and tanks. Meantime the media of radio and press declared the government to be the servant of the workers, a plain subterfuge contradicted by the fines imposed on the trade unions and by the imprisonment of their leaders as soon as the opportunity offered.”
Khrushchev declared in the 22nd Supreme Soviet Congress: “In the era of the personality-cult (i.e. under Stalin) corruption infiltrated our Party’s leadership, government and finances; produced decrees which trod the masses’ rights underfoot; lowered industrial output; filled men with fear in their work; and encouraged sycophants, informers and character-assassins.”
Thus both Eastern and Western systems of government falsely appear in the guise of the public will, Parliamentary rule, representation of the masses: while capitalism and communism alike frame inequitable laws because they neglect the heavenly decrees which establish fast what is best for man.
Islam and Legislation
Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote (“Social Contract” Book II: Chapter 6: “The Lawgiver”):
“To discover the rules of society that are best suited to nations, there would need to exist a superior intelligence who could understand the passions- of men without feeling any of them, who had no affinity with our nature but knew it to the roots, whose happiness was independent of ours but who would nevertheless make our happiness his concern, . . . in fact a divine lawgiver is needed.”
By these standards the most competent legislator is the Creator of man Himself, He knows all the mysteries of man’s being, makes no profit out of any human society, and needs no man. Hence the principles which can shape equitable social regulations must be learnt from a person who receives direct guidance from the Creator, whose teachings are the inspired revelations of that unique Source, and who is wholly reliant on that Infinite Wisdom.
Human laws aim only at the ordering of human society. They do not stray outside those limits, nor touch non-social matters like personal conditions, attitudes of mind, spiritual excellence. They do not try to cure internal pollutions within the personality. It is only when personality problems issue in social disorder in action that they enter the scope of legal measures. A person may be filthy in thought and spirit and still good in the eyes of Western law, which looks only upon outward acts and not upon the heart. Islam with its wide outlook aims not just at redressing what has been done wrong but primarily at putting individual and society right from inside, regarding the ethical personality as the basic unit, and its perfecting as the priority. Islam aims at an orderly society composed of sound morals, sane thinking, sensible action, serene psyches. It therefore legislates for the inner life of the individual in as much detail as for the outer life of society. It brings order and congruence between large and small in creation, the natural laws and the spiritual, the material and the metaphysical, the individual and the social, creeds and philosophies. It helps man not to come into collision with the natural laws which underlie the orderliness of the universe; disobedience to which collapses and confounds all human affairs.
Man-made institutions pursue performance of the law. but in Islam the trustee for the law’s performance is a deep-rooted faith; and a Muslim duly performs his obligations by the force of morality and faith, even in matters where he is seen by no one save by God alone. Armed force is only needed to control the tiny minority of criminal-minded hypocrites. Islam thus pays due regard both to inner purity of heart and to outward purity of action. It calls those deeds good, laudable and meritorious which spring from sincerity and faith.
USA’s Attorney General, in his introduction to his book on Islamic Law , wrote: “American law has only a tenuous connection with moral duty. An American may be accounted a law-abiding citizen even though his inner life is foul and corrupt. But Islam sees the fount of law in the Will of God as revealed to and proclaimed through His Apostle Muhammad. This Law: this Divine Will, treats the entire body of believers as a single society, including all the multifarious races and nationalities which go to make it up in a far-scattered community. This gives religion its true sound force and makes it the cohesive element of society. No bounds of nationality or geography divide, for the government itself is obedient to the one supreme authority of the Qur’an. This leaves no place for any other legislator,. so that no competition or rivalry or rift can arise. The believer regards this world as a vale of soul-making, the ante-room to the next : and the Qur’an makes perfectly plain what are the conditions and laws which govern believers’ behaviour to each other and towards society; and thus makes the changeover from this world to the next a sure and sound and safe transition.”
Despite Westerners’ small acquaintance with Islam, and their often mistaken ideas, far removed from reality, a comparatively large number of their thinkers grasp some of the depth and profundity of Islamic teaching and do not conceal their admiration for its clear exegesis and estimable doctrines.
A Muslim scientist’s respect for Islam’s laws and ordinances is no surprise. But if a non-Muslim savant, despite his slavery to his own religious bigotry, yet recognises Islam’s grandeur and greatness and its lofty leading, that is a real tribute, especially when it is based on a recognition of the progressive nature of Islam’s legal systems and their legacy to mankind. This is why this book quotes foreign verdicts on Islam. We do so, not because we need their support, but because they can help to open the road for seekers and enquirers so that who reads may run its way.
Dr. Laura Vacciea Vaglieri, Naples University professor, wrote: “In the Qur’an we come across jewels and treasures of knowledge and insight which are superior to the products of our most brilliant geniuses, profound philosophers and powerful politicians. How can such a book be the product of the brain of a single man - and that of a man whose life was spent in commercial, not particularly religious, circles - far removed from all schools of learning? He himself always insisted that he was in himself an ordinary simple man like other men, unable, without the help of the Almighty to produce the miracle of such work. None other than He whose knowledge compasses all that is in heaven and earth could produce the Qur’an.”
Bernard Shaw in his “Muhammad, Apostle of Allah” said: “I have always held the religion of Muhammad in the highest esteem simply from the marvel of its living vigour. To my mind it is the sole religion capable of success in mastering the multifarious vicissitudes of life and the differences of culture. I foresee (it is manifest even today) that, man by man, Europeans will come to adopt the Islamic faith. Mediaeval theologians for reasons of ignorance or bigotry pictured Muhammad’s religion as full of darkness, and considered that he had cast down a challenge to Christ in a spirit of hatred and fanaticism. After much study of the man, I have concluded that Muhammad was not only not against Christ, but that he saw in Him despairing mankind’s saviour I am convinced that if a man like him would undertake leadership in tile new world, he would succeed in solving its problems, and secure that peace and prosperity which all men want.”
Voltaire, who at the beginning was one of Islam’s most obdurate opponents and poured scorn on the Prophet, after his 40 years of study of religion, philosophy and history frankly said: “Muhammad’s religion was unquestionably superior to that of Jesus. He never descended to the wild blasphemies of Christians, nor said that one God was three or three Gods were one. The single pillar of his faith is the One God. Islam owes its being to its founder’s decrees and manliness; whereas Christians used the sword to force their religion on others. Oh Lord! if only all nations of Europe would make the Muslims their models.”
One of Voltaire’s heroes was Martin Luther. Yet he wrote that “Luther was not worthy to unloose the latchets of Muhammad’s shoes. Muhammad was a great man and a trainer of great men by his example of virtue and perfection. A wise lawgiver, a just ruler, an ascetic prophet, he raised the greatest revolution earth has seen.”
Tolstoi wrote: “Muhammad needs no other claim to fame than that he raised a barbarous bloodthirsty people out of their diabolical customs to untold advances. His Canon Law with its intelligence and wisdom will come to be the world’s authority.”
