The Confusion As to the True Nature of Islamic Government


The Independent (Banjul)

September 28, 2001
Posted to the web September 28, 2001

Banjul, the Gambia

It is becoming popular among Muslim political thinkers of the
contemporary age to claim that Islam stands for democracy. According to
their political philosophy, God being the ultimate authority,
sovereignty belongs to Him.

Divine authority Absolute sovereignty belongs to God. The Holy Quran
sums up His domain in the following verse:


Then exalted be Allah, the True King. There is no god but He, the Lord
of the Glorious Throne. (Ch.23 Al-Mu'minum:117)

The fundamental principle, that ultimately all rights to government
belong to God and He is the Lord of Sovereignty, is mentioned in
different ways in the Holy Quran of which the above verse is but one
example.

In the running of political affairs, God's sovereignty is expressed in
two ways:

The law (sharia) as derived from the holy Quran, the conduct of the Holy
Prophet of Islam and also from the established traditions attributed to
him by early Muslims are supreme. They bear essential guidelines for
legislation with the express Will of God.

b) No legislative process would be valid in contradiction of the
aforesaid principle.

Unfortunately, however, there is no unanimity among the scholars of
various sects of Islam as to what are the clear cut Laws (Shariah). On
this, all the scholars are agreed that legislation is the prerogative of
God and that He has expressed His Will through the Quranic revelation to
the Holy Founder of Islam.

Regarding the manner in which Muslim governments should be run, the
popular idea is that in the day to day administrative matters, affairs
and measures, the government, as representatives of the people, becomes
instrumental in the expression of God's Will. As sovereignty belongs to
the people by way of delegated power, therefore, such a system is
democratic.

Mullahism

This is the rigid view of the so-called orthodoxy who would come to an
understanding with the modern democratic tendencies of the Muslim
populace only on the condition that the Mullah (nearest translation
Muslim "clergy") be granted the ultimate right to judge the validity of
democratic decisions on the basis of Shariah.

If accepted, this demand would be tantamount to placing ultimate
legislative authority not in the hands of God but in the hands of the
orthodox or some other school of clergy. When you consider the awesome
power placed in their hands in the background of fundamental differences
prevailing among the Muslims clergy itself regarding their understanding
of what is and what is not Shariah, the consequences appear horrendous.
There are so many schools of jurisprudence among the orthodoxy. Even
within each school of jurisprudence, the clergy is not always unanimous
on every edict. Again, their position regarding what the actual Will of
God as expressed in Islamic Shariah is has been changing in different
periods of history. This presents a complex problem to the contemporary
world of Islam which still seems to be in search of its true identity.
It is gradually becoming more apparent to Muslim intellectuals that the
only meeting point amongst the clergy is their uncompromising demand for
the enforcement of Shariah.

The Iranian revolution has further whetted the appetite of the Mullah in
countries where Sunni Muslims are a majority. According to them, if
Khomeini can succeed, why must they fail? Beyond this lies their
fantasia - the land of their dreams.

The masses are confused. Would you prefer the Word of God and that of
the Holy Prophet of Islam or would you rather have men under a godless
and fearless society to guide and shape your political manifestos? This
question is extremely difficult for a common person, who finds himself
in a state of bewilderment and confusion. The masses in many Muslim
countries adore Islam and would readily die for the Will of God and the
honour of the Holy Prophet of Islam, may peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him. Yet there is something within the whole scenario which leaves
them confused, disturbed and very uneasy. Despite their love of God and
that of the Holy Prophet, it invokes many a bloody memory of governments
in the past which were either under the influence of Mullahs or
exploited Mullahism to their political advantage. As for the Muslim
politicians, they seem to be divided and indecisive. Some cannot resist
exploiting this situation by siding with the Mullah and patronising
them. They cherish the secret hope, however, that at the time of
elections, it will not be the Mullah but they who will be elected as
stalwart champions of Shariah. The masses would prefer to trust them
more as guardians of Shariah than the Mullah. Life would be easier and
more down to earth in their hands than under the stiff and
uncompromising control of the "custodians of heaven". Most scrupulous
amongst the politicians are the foresighted ones who consider this to be
a dangerous game. Alas! They are fast turning into a minority. Politics
and hypocrisy and truth and scruples, or for that matter any noble
virtue, do not seem to go hand in hand. By and large, the intellectuals
are inclined ever more towards democracy. They love Islam but are afraid
of theocratic rule. They view democracy not as an alternative to Islam,
but genuinely believe that as a political philosophy, it is the Holy
Quran itself which propounds democracy:

Those who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer, and whose affairs
are decided by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what we have
provided for them. (Ch. 42 Al-Shura:39) And consult them in matters of
administration; and when thou art determined, then put thy trust wholly
in Allah. Surely, Allah loves those who put their trust in Him. (Ch: 3:
Al-Imran: 160) As a net result of this tug of war between various
factions, young Muslim countries, like Pakistan, find themselves in a
rigmarole of confusion and contradiction. The electorate is
temperamentally averse to the return of the Mullah to the constituent
assemblies in any sizeable number. Even at the height of Shariah fever,
hardly five to ten percent of the Mullahs succeed in winning elections.
Yet, having committed themselves to the Law of God in return for
additional support from the Mullah, the politicians find themselves in a
very unenviable position.

Deep within, they are fully convinced that the acceptance of Shariah is
in reality paradoxical to the principle of legislature through a
democratically elected house of representatives. If the authority for
legislation lies with God, which a Muslim cannot deny, then, as a
logical consequence, it is the divines and the Mullahs who possess the
prerogative of understanding and defining the law of Shariah. In this
scenario, the whole exercise of electing legislative bodies would become
futile and meaningless.

After all, members of Parliament are not required to sign only on the
dotted lines where the Mullah so indicates. It is rather tragic that
neither the politician nor the intellectual has ever genuinely attempted
to understand the form or forms of government which the Holy Quran
really propounds or recognises.




Copyright © 2001 The Independent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------