Is Islam Compatible with Democracy and Modernity?

Asghar Ali Engineer

Comment on this article
Read other comments on this article

It is frequently argued that because many Islamic countries are monarchies or dictatorships – or because of certain events that have taken place within their borders – Islam is not compatible with either democracy or modernity. Some would maintain that Islamic culture is itself a stumbling block to a democratic polity and modernistic society and can accommodate neither. To maintain such a position is to misunderstand not only religion, but society, history and the operation of social forces.

If the same logic were applied elsewhere then Christianity too would still be under a cloud. The Christian Church also opposed democracy, secularism and modernity until the 18th century. A great struggle ensued between the church and princely rulers on the one hand, and between Christian and secular elements in society on the other. It was finally only during 19th century that democracy and modernity became acceptable within western, Christian society.

However, even some well-known scholars and orientalists have accepted such a superficial view of Islam and Islamic society. The western media, partly for political reasons and partly from ignorance of the social and material forces at work, have been instrumental in propagating such views about Islam and Islamic societies. But in order to understand the reality requires deeper insight into the social processes at work and it is necessary to view the issue from a number of perspectives: sociological, political and historical.

Recently a debate took place on the web regarding these issues. Ten questions were posed and responded to by the participants:
1) Is Islam incompatible with democracy?
2) Can Shari’ah laws with their harsh punishments and democracy go together?
3) Is it possible in Islamic countries to separate religion and state?
4) Can Islam support individual rights i.e. human rights?
5) Has the United States contributed to hampering democracy in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc?
6) Is Islam opposed to modernity and does it refuse to come to terms with it?
7) Can religious texts be used as blueprints for the structure of a modern society?
8) Do women hold an inferior position in Muslim society, and can equality for women only be ensured through secular laws?
9) Is Islam tolerant and progressive, given that Islamic countries ban music and T.V., cinema posters etc?

I shall try to answer each of these questions in turn. But as I stated before, in order to understand these questions it is not enough simply to look at what is happening in Muslim countries today and ascribe it to religion and religious teachings. Religion may appear to be a dominant cause but often it is not. Much happens under the cover of religion but there are all sorts of interests, particularly political and economic, that are more determinative and cannot be ignored. One also has to remember that there is no single interpretation of any religion. And one’s interpretation is deeply influenced by one’s sociopolitical inclination and turn of mind. Contemporary forces also play an important role in the interpretation of religion. Contemporary Islam is being interpreted in multiple ways. And the roles of history, of historical forces, of culture and of cultural heritage are all factors in the interpretation of religion.

With these preliminary remarks in mind let us address the questions detailed above.

Islam and Democracy
The first question is whether Islam is incompatible with democracy. It certainly is not. The Qur’an lays emphasis on what it calls shura’ (consultation) (3:159, 42:38). Even the messenger of Allah is required to consult his people in worldly matters and Muslims are required to consult each other in their secular affairs. Now it is true that such consultation and modern day representative democracy may not be exactly similar. However, the idea of modern democracy and the Qur’anic injunction to consult people is the same in spirit. New institutions are continually developing and human societies, depending on their worldly experiences, continually change and refine these institutions. The Qur’anic text not only gives us the concept of shura’ (democratic consultation) but cannot be said to support even remotely the ideas of dictatorship and authoritarianism.

Some commentators try to use the Qur’anic verse 4:59 to justify obedience to any kind of authority including a monarch, a caliph or a military dictator. This is certainly not the spirit of the verse. One has to see it in its historical context. The verse is addressed to Bedouins who were nomads and were not used to submitting to any authority. The Prophet sent his representatives to these Bedouin tribes and they refused to follow his instructions. The verse exhorted them to obey these authorities. It cannot be used to justify submission to illegitimately constituted authority. And, read in conjunction with the verses 3:159 and 42:38, it implies strongly that one has to submit to properly and democratically constituted authority. Authority has to be legitimate and properly constituted.

In the contemporary world the concept of shura’ should mean democratic process and the constitution of proper democratic institutions - for which elections are a necessary requirement. In Islam no authority forcibly constituted, or acquired by power of swords or arms, can have any legitimacy whatsoever. The institution of monarchy or military dictatorship did not exist during the time of the Prophet. They are subsequent developments and were legitimized by the ‘Ulama in order to prevent anarchy. Thus the ‘Ulama conferred some legitimacy on monarchy, not in the light of Islamic teachings but only to prevent anarchy. Some of them also became part of the power structure but their pronouncements had no Islamic legitimacy. One sees this today in most of the Islamic countries. The ‘Ulama in Saudi Arabia are very much part of the monarchical power structure and legitimize everything the Saudi rulers do.

Thus the absence of democracy in Muslim countries is by means on account of Islamic teachings or the incompatibility of democracy with Islam but due to a host of factors: political, historical and cultural. The imperialist powers, first of Europe and then of the United States, have also played their role. The early Islamic democracy breathed its last within thirty years of the Holy Prophet’s death. The institution of monarchy crept in under Roman influence. It is important to note that the capital of Islam had shifted from Medina to Kufa in Iraq and then to Damascus in Syria, once part of the Roman Empire. Mu-‘awiyah who seized power without the consent of the Muslims operated from Damascus and adopted Roman monarchical ways. Thus deeper historical and cultural influences must be taken into account in order to understand the political institutions in many Muslim countries today. American and British interests also play their role in shaping the power structures in these countries. In many Islamic countries including the Saudi Arabia and Egypt there is a deep longing among the people for democracy and popular government but it is frustrated by the heavy hand of authoritarian rule. It is not Islam that stands in the way of establishing democracy in these countries. It is powerful vested interests - both internal and external – that are preventing democracy from being established.

Divine Mercy and the Shari’ah
The next question is of implementation of Shari’ah law in Muslim countries. Many theologians and their followers believe sincerely that the problems confronting their countries and societies can be solved by enforcing Shari’ah laws and the punishments prescribed therein. Also, they believe these laws must be enforced as they were developed by the early jurists (fuqaha’) without any rethinking. This is certainly not the spirit of the Qur’anic injunctions. Many Qur’anic verses were revealed in and relate to particular situations and this has to be kept in mind when applying these laws. The fundamental principle is to prevent crime and crime can be prevented in number of ways. At times harsh punishments may be necessary while at other times reformative efforts may be more relevant. When the Qur’anic injunctions about crimes like murder, theft, robbery, rebellion, rape and adultery are considered carefully this becomes quite obvious.

For example, the verse on cutting off of hands, 5:38 is immediately followed by verse 5:39 which says, “But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, Allah will turn to him (mercifully). Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” Thus emphasis is on reform and repentance, not on harsh punishment. It may be awarded only in extreme cases. Also, if verse 5:39 is read in conjunction with the verse 5:33 where punishment for “those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned”, it should become obvious that one must distinguish between ordinary and ultimate crime. When the punishment for mischief in the land or waging war against Allah and His Messenger could be imprisonment, how can the cutting off of hands be justified for mere theft?

Cutting off of hands can also be interpreted metaphorically, to mean taking measures that will prevent the miscreant from committing theft in future. Cutting off the tongue could mean silencing some one, not literally cutting off the tongue. Also, one has to keep in mind the historical context. This was the traditional, pre-Islamic punishment meted out at that time and when some tribes indulged in crimes for their survival. The Qur’an invokes the then prevalent punishment but also adds the concept of reform and repentance and speaks of Allah’s Forgiveness and Mercy. A criminal, if he repents and reforms should be forgiven and shown mercy. Thus the Qur’an accepts the then prevalent punishment but improves upon it. The real purpose of Qur’anic justice is to reform the criminal but not to spare him if he persists despite being given the opportunity for a better life.

Separation of Religion and State
Another question relates to the separation of state and religion. Muslims generally believe that it is not possible to separate Islam and the state. This belief has acquired almost doctrinal status among Muslims. However, it has no such doctrinal position in the Qur’an. In fact it has been pointed out that the Qur’an does not even mention the concept of the state, only the concept of a just society. There was no state in Arabia at the time that Islam appeared and the Prophet laid down a bare framework of administration for the newly emerging society. There was no paid police, army or bureaucracy during his time. It was during the time of 2nd Caliph Umar that a register (Diwan) of paid army soldiers was started. It is mere historical coincidence that a state structure came into existence along with the religious movement. The Shari’ah law provided a cohesive and logical legal structure where before there had been a legal vacuum and thus was a great advance. Hence Shari’ah law acquired a very high status in Islam.

Integration of state and religion is therefore a historical coincidence rather than a result of religious doctrine. Over time Shari’ah law, which had been the result of a dynamic process, became stagnant. Some modern scholars tried to infuse the principle of dynamism by invoking the concept of ijtihad but did not succeed because of the stagnation inherent in most Islamic states. The authoritarian rulers in Muslim countries find legitimization only through the support of the ‘Ulama and the ‘Ulama insist on retaining the Sahri’ah law as inherited from the past. If Shari’ah law were to be rethought or reinterpreted in the light of modern conditions, the orthodox ‘Ulama would risk losing their grip over the power structures. This collaboration between authoritarian rulers and the orthodox ‘Ulama has thus resulted in total social, political and legal stagnation in many Muslim countries.

In some Muslim countries it may not be possible to attempt a total separation between state and religion, where for example, non-separation has become an integral part of the historical legacy, and one should begin by taking gradual steps in that direction. There cannot be any universal recipe since much will depend on the specific conditions in each country. An overall Islamic moral framework can be retained - as had happened in many western countries, including the USA, where an overall Christian moral framework has influenced law making. There are few countries in the West that have discarded such influence totally. Among Muslim countries Turkey has achieved separation of state from religion. But it must also be borne in mind that forcible imposition of modernization and separation of state and religion failed in countries like Afghanistan during the thirties and in Iran during the time of the Shah. Such attempts resulted in Islamic revolution and the imposition of Shari’ah law from above.

Islam and Human Rights
Individual rights are fundamental to the functioning of any liberal democracy. In fact the concept of individual rights or human rights has evolved along with the evolution of democratic power structures. Since there is no fully fledged democracy in any Muslim country there is little respect for the concept of individual rights. Indeed, many authoritarian rulers in Muslim countries reject the very concept of human rights denouncing them as western and secular in origin.

Thus one has to struggle for democratic power in order to usher in the concept of individual rights in Muslim countries. Human rights activists in some Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt are dubbed as western agents, persecuted and thrown into jail. Anyone who holds a different political opinion faces persecution. Some who advocate changes in the Shari’ah laws in the light of changed conditions, or attempt to reconceptualize Islamic philosophical doctrine, face severe persecution. There is little respect for individual rights and individual dignity. Full respect for individual rights and dignity are only possible under a fully democratic system. For that there is a basic need for a democratic polity.

Freedom of conscience and freedom of speech have never been denied by the Qur’an or the Prophet. The Prophet never suppressed individual freedom or discouraged differences of opinion. He even said that difference of opinion in the Islamic ummah was a matter of grace and mercy. However, with the evolution of feudal and monarchical culture differences of opinion were not permitted and were ruthlessly suppressed. During the early Abbasid period a controversy raged whether the Qur’an was created or is coeternal with God. The Abbasid who supported the Mu’tazilah viewpoint that the Qur’an was created forcibly suppressed the other point of view that the Qur'an is coeternal with God and flogged a person of the stature of Imam Abu Hanifa for holding a contrary view. This authoritarian culture remains unchanged in many Muslim countries today. Many Islamic scholars have had to leave Egypt, Pakistan and other Muslim countries for western universities.

The suppression of free speech and freedom of conscience go hand-in-hand with the suppression of freedom of inquiry. It is for this reason that no Muslim country today has a strong tradition in the social or physical sciences. For the sciences to flourish one needs a liberal democratic culture. Muslim countries will remain far behind in these fields if their authoritarian power structures are not demolished and replaced with democratic ones. Unfortunately there is no such movement in sight. The United States has always propped up corrupt and authoritarian rulers in the Middle East who suppress freedom of expression and many of these countries remain totally dependent on the west. They cannot develop even to the extent that India has developed. No Muslim country can boast of any modern scientific discovery.

Islam and Modernity
Democracy and modernity go hand in hand. One can hardly be modern without being democratic. Whilst it is possible to argue that there are successful authoritarian models of modernization like China and Singapore, on deeper reflection it will be seen that democratic model is more congenial to modernization, particularly in the social sphere. Modern social sciences cannot flourish under authoritarian regimes even though natural sciences might.

But the lack of modernity in Muslim countries is not because of Islamic teaching per se but is due more to its medieval interpretation. Islam can come to terms with modernity. Its teachings are quite modernistic if one goes by the Qur’anic pronouncements. The Qur’an encourages pluralism in verses like 5:48, 6:109, 60:8. All these verses are quite supportive of a pluralistic social structure. In fact early Islamic societies were far more pluralistic than any others throughout the medieval period. The Qur’an not only recognizes the validity of other faiths but also makes it incumbent for Muslims to respect equally all past prophets - and one who fails to do so is not true Muslim. Clear proof can be found in verses 4:150-152.

The intolerance in Muslim societies today is more political than religious. Islam need not be intolerant of any other religion including that of kufr (unbelief) if it agrees to coexist peacefully and harmoniously. Thus Islam and pluralism can go together and have always done so. In fact it was Europe in medieval times that as intolerant of non-Christians. Islam today must free itself from the grip of intolerant theologians close to authoritarian power structures - authoritarian power that is at the root of their intolerance.

Religious Texts and Modern Society
It is true that some religious texts pose serious problems for modern society. But it need not be so with the Qur’anic texts if they are properly understood and are interpreted in the correct spirit. At the same time one should not obstruct worthwhile democratic, social and political change simply because some text is problematic. The religious texts were revealed or evolved in a very different social environment and one must take today’s relevance into account. One need not reject religious texts per se but examine their suitability or otherwise for modern societies.

Status of Women
Many Muslim societies treat women as inferior to men and try to justify this treatment by quoting from religious texts including the Qur’an. But they quote very selectively to prove women’s subordination to men. The Qur’an, if approached holistically, promotes the equal status of women. The verse often quoted by theologians to show women’s inferior status is 4:34, but they ignore verses like 2:228, 33:35 and several others or try to explain them away as promoting merely spiritual equality. This is incorrect. The Qur’an taken as a whole is far more supportive of equality of the sexes. Modern Islamic scholars now totally reject the orthodox interpretation of verse 4:34 made in a social environment in which male superiority was considered as quite natural, socially and biologically. I have discussed this in details in my book Rights of Women in Islam. It need not detain us here.

But one has to wage a serious struggle to promote sexual equality in contemporary Muslim societies where Muslim women suffer many severe disabilities. Again, it should be a part of the democratic struggle. One can break the stranglehold of the conservative ‘Ulama only in a tolerant, pluralistic modern democracy. It is not Islamic teaching that stands in the way, it is the orthodox ‘Ulama on the one hand, and authoritarian power structures on the other. The Qur’an, can in fact, can become a great asset in promoting sexual equality.

What we need are not only modern interpretation of the Qur’anic text but also female theologians fully conscious of their rights