Nouman Hashmi's Arguments
Democracy is an only system that exists for peaceful transfer of power, I'm not talking about just terminologies, I'm talking about functional aspects.
They are people like you from whom Iqbal expected to reconstruct the religious thought in Islam, by seeing various things again from the source by not seeing things in context of other opinions, to avoid all the mistakes we might have done, so that we can have refined spirit of Islam to apply principals in daur'e hazir.
There are some basic questions:
Q1. What does Quran specifically say about making state system?
Q2. What kind of a system was that we had in the time period of Prophet SAW?
Q3. How the word secular is defined?
Ans1. Quran gives few Laws and 1 principal related to state. Other things are left on us how we make systems based on it, while moral values Quran gives are not specific for making state system, those values will be reflected through people on state level.
Ans2. We had legislative body by default in form of sahaba for initial interim government, Rasool'Allah (S.A.W) advised to transfer the power to Quraish based on majority which confirms the democratic spirit of 'amruhum shura bainahum'. After that, we had to make systems on principals which we did not, don't mind the western terminology of 'democracy' we had the same idea long before them.
Ans3. Church as institution had the power of state and the movement which separated the church from state affairs gave birth to the secular concept. If this is right then how we can associate it to democracy which never sets parameters based on any ideology, it rather reflects the ideologies and preferences of people of any state. It is never same for different people in different states, for American people having secular mindsets democracy will produce secular laws, but for Muslim majority state, how can you think about it?
Iqbal criticized the 'western' form of democracy that produced secular state because of secular mindset of people and webs of capitalism.
Speeches of Quaid'e Azam, which some people use to make point that he wanted secular state, and some people use the other speech to make point that he wanted theocratic state, both of these only confirm that Quaid'e Azam saw Pakistan in democratic context, which will not be secular if majority is Muslim and shall not remain in interest based banking system, and Islam gives all due rights to minorities.
People with other point of view when discuss Khilafat, nobody talks about its 'Functions' that distinguish it from Democracy. That raises some more questions.
If not elected how will we get a Khalifa?
If Shura shall select him, where and how will we get that shura?
Either that will be by chance or we must have formula. I never see a solution except some kind of general elections. May be because there is no solution except we take advice from Quran.
I admire and idealize everything that is said about System of Khilafat and I wish we have that in Pakistan, then what makes us hate a system so much by which we can get Khalifa and Shura no matter we rename it with Khilafat instead of democracy, do we have a practical way different from this?
That’s true, in Secular state Laws aren't based on any religious scripture, what if Law makers sitting in senate are Muslims and pass Islamic laws? Then why do we have to put label on state?
Democracy is not subservience of mankind. It does not disallow to acquire Islamic way of life, does Allah directly command mankind for state affairs? No! Allah made human being his Naaib on earth as He says in Quran. So let it be that power, Islamic Laws can absolutely be incorporated in Democratic structure.
It can be anyone's definition that democracy is napaak and paleed system, but on what basis? What functions, processes or methods are so evil? We shall reject Democracy If Quran guides us in other ways. May be we have problem only with the word Democracy.
Context of Surah Al-An'aam is about deciding from Haq and Batil which criteria is Not how many people supports Haq, criteria is Haq itself! We have to believe it on individual level. While context in Surah Ash'Shura Is about deciding in conflicts or in collective situations which criteria is ‘amruhum shura baina'hum’, and it’s specifically for Muslims that majority shall decide in collective affairs.
In Haq'o Batil situations democracy is not even relevant to be discussed, but in solving problems and collective decisions 'within Muslims' this is Criteria! And it’s totally relevant to this topic. And it’s exactly what our Constitution says, it confines us in boundary of being Muslim that Supremacy belongs to Allah alone and Quran and Sunnah will be followed as Law, simultaneously the system allows us Muslims to solve collective situation with our opinions (vote).
We have to solve problems in order the get what we want.
1) Why don’t we consider Senate or Parliament the Shura? Which obviously has to come from somewhere! Democracy solves this problem. Common population don’t make laws and take decisions, they are experts who does this in parliament.
2) Do we have Prophet (S.A.W) with us to decide as authority who could bypass anyone's opinion as he was in guidance of Allah directly? Technically democracy solves this problem too, because shura in democracy of Pakistan shall decide in guidance of Quran and Sunnah according to the constitution.
3) In Sura Ash-Shura, Muslims are mukhatib, not selected or experts only. Taking that principal to make a system, Muslims will just have to choose between good people in democracy as independent election commission shall filter thieves, criminals and incompetent ineligible people out of the process ideally.
Everything we say, don't we want to see it happening? If I accept everything with other angle, try to 'actualize' the ideas hypothetically for a moment and tell me if democracy is not the solution once and for all to achieve that. We haven't seen it yet, at least without people who shouldn't have been part of this process at first place, plus its kind of an open-source in its nature, replace anything you don’t like in contemporary version of democracy, but 'vote of majority' which defines democracy, solves a lot for us, I don’t see actualizing it unless we consider Quranic usool in solving power issue.
Omar's ArgumentsIslam gives us is a unique system. Some of it's aspects might look similar to democratic philosophy like supremacy of justice, freedom of speech, respect to minorities, etc ... but so what? We as Muslims are suppose to follow Islam with Excellence, and when we will do so, we will reap all it's bounties, despite Islam looks similar to democratic system or not. Let assume for a moment that there is nothing common is Islamic political theory and Democratic theory, if so then would we reject Islam and select the later one? If the answer is no then what difference would it really make if Islamic system has something in common with democratic or not? Our Loyalties are and should be with Islam, strictly, shouldn't they? ...
The core objective of Islam to take mankind out of subservience of mankind, liberate him in that context, so that he is free to be Submitted to Allah SWT. Democratic philosophy on the other hand has a tendency to bring mankind again under the subservience of mankind again. Democracy is not a name of electoral body or parliamentarian system, rather its a name of a ideology, a philosophy which suggest a way of life to mankind. It has it's unique ontology and it's unique epistemology.
In a Secular society the laws or the constitution isn't based on any religious scripture. Rather it is based on human judgment and reason. Ideally democratic societies are absolutely liberal, hence endorse secularism, hence Ideally Democratic Societies are secular in nature. In an Ideal democratic society the decision of what's right and what's wrong, what's legal and what's illegal is decided by majority's opinion. In Islam this is decided by Qur'an and Sunnah. However In Islam there are some issues which comes under Mubah category, i.e. Islam has given complete freedom to man to decide in Mubah matters. In that particular area I don't think there would be any harm in using majorities will to decide in Mubah matters.
I cannot claim the democratic system to be Napaak or Paleed, however sole reliance on democratic philosophy, that is supermacy of majorities will, eventually leads to where Iqbal has warned us (http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/1872-10.pdf). The benchmark to decide what's right and wha'ts wrong shifts with the majorities will, over the period of time. If tomorrow the same majority calls something bad which was previously considered good, then no questions asked. If today Majority is Muslim and they adhere to Democratic Philosophy they might develop a state Islamic, however the supermacy of Majorities will eventually allows them to shift their benchmarks over the period of time. Contrary to this If Quran and Sunnah are held supreme instead of Majorities will, then over the period of time people might also go astray, however this time their definition of whats right and what's wrong haven't changed, though they might not be folloiwing it, but still they know where the benchmarks are. Contrary to this in democratic philosophy the benchmark shifts.
A question is often asked that 'If we opt a democratic system of governance, and if the majority of the population is Muslim then wouldn't it automatically lead to Supermacy of Qur'an and Sunnah, and eventually lead to a system similar to Khilafa, or at least in spirit?"
Lets start with a verse 116 of Surah Al-Anaam: (Translated by M.Asad):
The alternative: Now if we don't listen to majority then how will we make laws and how we will make sure that every one will be willing to accept them? There is no rocket science in this: Take a look around, you will see various organizations all across the world operating on the principle of Meritocracy. Let it be Army, Judiciary, Executive Bodies, Multinational Corporations, Universities, even Vatican select their Generals, Judges, CEOs, Professors, Deans, and the Pope, respectively on the basis of pure Merit. And when they make rules and policies regarding for everyone in the organization, people don't object and follow them whether they like them or not. In corporate governance, how the board of director (doesn't it resembles Majlis-e-Shura) selects the CEO of the comany, or how the new Pope is selected at the Vatican, is more or less the same way Khalifa is the Khilafat system should be selected. Majorities vote might be considered, but only as an option but not as the ultimate deciding factor.
Is Majlis-e-Shura a Democratic Concept?
Majlis-e-Shura is a board of wise men, not the general population, which comprise of two or more members. It may be formed within a small town, village, city, state, or even a caravan. An Ameer is appointed on the basis of merit. Before making a decision consultation process starts. people give suggestions, arguments in favor or against of different options. Mashfarah or suggestion is different then a vote, because there is a weight attached to it, since in a Shura each member has a unique profile, some a elder, experienced, wiser or experts of a particular area as compare to others. So the Ameer, after taking everyones suggestions make his own judgement, which may or may not be in favor of the majority. An Intelligent Ameer will obviously weigh the opinions or suggestions of members of shura, and will decide on the weights first. Weights of suggestions are considered superior to their count. Once the ameer decides, everyone obeys. Since the shura is organized on the basis of merit not popularity, and all members happily accept the outcome of the process. For example in Majlis-e-Shura of 15 members, only two are Medical Doctors, or three are engineers, or only one is an IT expert, then for matter related with specialized areas, the opinion of that particular expert will obviously be considered. For Mubah matters such as what should be the menu of dinner or lunch, Ameer can opt to side with majorities vote.
If we analyze the life of Prophet saw and Khulfa-e-Rashideen ra, we find numerous examples of such settings. Such as: On one occasion, the noble Sahabah (ra) were concerned about the treaty of Hudaybiyah, before Allah’s (swt) word on the matter had been clarified to them. They expressed their opinions very strongly to the Prophet (saw), because they thought that this treaty would humiliate the Muslims. Nevertheless, he (saw) rejected the opinions of all the Sahabah in order to sign the treaty of Hudaybiyah in obedience to the command of Allah (swt).
Once, Umar b. Al-Khattab (ra) consulted the Muslims regarding the newly conquered lands of Iraq, whether they should be divided amongst the Muslims as booty, or left in the hands of its people subject to payment of Kharaj. Bilal (ra), Abdur Rahman (ra) and Az-Zubayr (ra) thought that the land should be divided in the same way that the Prophet (saw) divided the land of Khaybar as booty. Umar, however, made Ijtihad upon some ayat in Surah al Hashr to deduce that the land should be Kharaji land. Once Umar heard the views and was convinced with his own Ijtihad in preference to that of the majority, he rejected all other opinions and followed his own expert understanding of the text.
The Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert, Habab bin Munthir (ra), over the selection of the place of the Battle of Badr. It was narrated in the Seerah of Ibnu Hisham that, ”when he (saw) camped at the near side of the water of Badr, Al-Habab b. Al-Munthir was not happy with this place. He said to the Messenger (saw), ‘O Messenger of Allah! Did Allah make you camp in this place where we can’t depart from it, or is it the opinion of war and strategy?’ He (saw) said, ‘It is rather the opinion of war and strategy.’ Al Habab b. al-Munthir said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, this is not the (right) place. Move the people till we come to the side of the water near to the people (enemy), we camp there..’ The Messenger (saw) said, ‘You gave the right opinion.”’ Here, the Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert without asking for the majority view.
To.Be.continued ...
The core objective of Islam to take mankind out of subservience of mankind, liberate him in that context, so that he is free to be Submitted to Allah SWT. Democratic philosophy on the other hand has a tendency to bring mankind again under the subservience of mankind again. Democracy is not a name of electoral body or parliamentarian system, rather its a name of a ideology, a philosophy which suggest a way of life to mankind. It has it's unique ontology and it's unique epistemology.
In a Secular society the laws or the constitution isn't based on any religious scripture. Rather it is based on human judgment and reason. Ideally democratic societies are absolutely liberal, hence endorse secularism, hence Ideally Democratic Societies are secular in nature. In an Ideal democratic society the decision of what's right and what's wrong, what's legal and what's illegal is decided by majority's opinion. In Islam this is decided by Qur'an and Sunnah. However In Islam there are some issues which comes under Mubah category, i.e. Islam has given complete freedom to man to decide in Mubah matters. In that particular area I don't think there would be any harm in using majorities will to decide in Mubah matters.
I cannot claim the democratic system to be Napaak or Paleed, however sole reliance on democratic philosophy, that is supermacy of majorities will, eventually leads to where Iqbal has warned us (http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/1872-10.pdf). The benchmark to decide what's right and wha'ts wrong shifts with the majorities will, over the period of time. If tomorrow the same majority calls something bad which was previously considered good, then no questions asked. If today Majority is Muslim and they adhere to Democratic Philosophy they might develop a state Islamic, however the supermacy of Majorities will eventually allows them to shift their benchmarks over the period of time. Contrary to this If Quran and Sunnah are held supreme instead of Majorities will, then over the period of time people might also go astray, however this time their definition of whats right and what's wrong haven't changed, though they might not be folloiwing it, but still they know where the benchmarks are. Contrary to this in democratic philosophy the benchmark shifts.
A question is often asked that 'If we opt a democratic system of governance, and if the majority of the population is Muslim then wouldn't it automatically lead to Supermacy of Qur'an and Sunnah, and eventually lead to a system similar to Khilafa, or at least in spirit?"
Lets start with a verse 116 of Surah Al-Anaam: (Translated by M.Asad):
"Now if thou pay heed unto the majority of those [who live] on earth, they will but lead thee astray from the path of God: they follow but [other people's] conjectures, and they themselves do nothing but guess."Doesn't this verse negate the core of the democratic philosophy?
The alternative: Now if we don't listen to majority then how will we make laws and how we will make sure that every one will be willing to accept them? There is no rocket science in this: Take a look around, you will see various organizations all across the world operating on the principle of Meritocracy. Let it be Army, Judiciary, Executive Bodies, Multinational Corporations, Universities, even Vatican select their Generals, Judges, CEOs, Professors, Deans, and the Pope, respectively on the basis of pure Merit. And when they make rules and policies regarding for everyone in the organization, people don't object and follow them whether they like them or not. In corporate governance, how the board of director (doesn't it resembles Majlis-e-Shura) selects the CEO of the comany, or how the new Pope is selected at the Vatican, is more or less the same way Khalifa is the Khilafat system should be selected. Majorities vote might be considered, but only as an option but not as the ultimate deciding factor.
Is Majlis-e-Shura a Democratic Concept?
Majlis-e-Shura is a board of wise men, not the general population, which comprise of two or more members. It may be formed within a small town, village, city, state, or even a caravan. An Ameer is appointed on the basis of merit. Before making a decision consultation process starts. people give suggestions, arguments in favor or against of different options. Mashfarah or suggestion is different then a vote, because there is a weight attached to it, since in a Shura each member has a unique profile, some a elder, experienced, wiser or experts of a particular area as compare to others. So the Ameer, after taking everyones suggestions make his own judgement, which may or may not be in favor of the majority. An Intelligent Ameer will obviously weigh the opinions or suggestions of members of shura, and will decide on the weights first. Weights of suggestions are considered superior to their count. Once the ameer decides, everyone obeys. Since the shura is organized on the basis of merit not popularity, and all members happily accept the outcome of the process. For example in Majlis-e-Shura of 15 members, only two are Medical Doctors, or three are engineers, or only one is an IT expert, then for matter related with specialized areas, the opinion of that particular expert will obviously be considered. For Mubah matters such as what should be the menu of dinner or lunch, Ameer can opt to side with majorities vote.
If we analyze the life of Prophet saw and Khulfa-e-Rashideen ra, we find numerous examples of such settings. Such as: On one occasion, the noble Sahabah (ra) were concerned about the treaty of Hudaybiyah, before Allah’s (swt) word on the matter had been clarified to them. They expressed their opinions very strongly to the Prophet (saw), because they thought that this treaty would humiliate the Muslims. Nevertheless, he (saw) rejected the opinions of all the Sahabah in order to sign the treaty of Hudaybiyah in obedience to the command of Allah (swt).
Once, Umar b. Al-Khattab (ra) consulted the Muslims regarding the newly conquered lands of Iraq, whether they should be divided amongst the Muslims as booty, or left in the hands of its people subject to payment of Kharaj. Bilal (ra), Abdur Rahman (ra) and Az-Zubayr (ra) thought that the land should be divided in the same way that the Prophet (saw) divided the land of Khaybar as booty. Umar, however, made Ijtihad upon some ayat in Surah al Hashr to deduce that the land should be Kharaji land. Once Umar heard the views and was convinced with his own Ijtihad in preference to that of the majority, he rejected all other opinions and followed his own expert understanding of the text.
The Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert, Habab bin Munthir (ra), over the selection of the place of the Battle of Badr. It was narrated in the Seerah of Ibnu Hisham that, ”when he (saw) camped at the near side of the water of Badr, Al-Habab b. Al-Munthir was not happy with this place. He said to the Messenger (saw), ‘O Messenger of Allah! Did Allah make you camp in this place where we can’t depart from it, or is it the opinion of war and strategy?’ He (saw) said, ‘It is rather the opinion of war and strategy.’ Al Habab b. al-Munthir said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, this is not the (right) place. Move the people till we come to the side of the water near to the people (enemy), we camp there..’ The Messenger (saw) said, ‘You gave the right opinion.”’ Here, the Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert without asking for the majority view.
To.Be.continued ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Use of any abusive or inappropriate language will give us a reason to delete your comment.