Page 1 of 9

Status: 1st Credit Assignment

Topic: Difference Between Khilafa and Democracy.

How Can We Restore Islamic Political System

In Pakistan?

Programme: M. Phil (Social Sciences)

Semester: 1st, 2010

Course Title: Islamic Modernism: MPS 606

Submitted By: Prof. Ghulam Ali Buriro

Submitted To: Professor Anwer Ahmed: The Course Facilitator

Page 2 of 9

Date of Submission: 28-03-2010

INTRODUCTION:

The relationship between ‘Khilafa’ and ‘Democracy’ is quite complex. For, they are identical at one hand and paradoxical on the other. Since the scope of the present task (assignment) as its first part, is to trace out the differences between the two; I would exactly work my way up in this exclusive area. Further, I would trace out the identical element in its next equal part.

KHILAFA AND DEMOCRACY: SOME BASIC DIFFERENCES:

The first and the foremost difference between ‘Khilafa’ and ‘Democracy’ has its roots in the concept of “Sovereignty”. In Khilafa as an immediate offshoot and an integral legacy of Islam, Sovereignty belongs to Allah. Thus, Khilafa believes in Allah as the supreme Authority, the Foundation of all power and it also presupposes that it is He Who is the Ultimate, the Final Authority over all things living and non-living. However, man may operate as Allah’s Vicegerent on earth: “Inni Jailun Filarza Khilafa” (Quran). As per later developments and interpretations “Khilafa” also becomes the cynosure of all power and remains unaccountable to anyone. Opposite to this concept Democracy believes in people, the supremacy of people above all the rest, in form of the will of each individual exercised in form of General Will as the highest expression of power and authority (Khan. A: 11). Consequently, the Executive (Ameerulmomineen) in ‘Khilafa’ is not to account for his actions to any individual or institution. In case of personal grievance against the Executive, however, one may call for court’s interventions if one would so desire. In democracy, conversely, the Executive remains accountable to the parliament for all his policy decisions.

The second difference between Khilafa and Democracy is that in Khilafa the Executive comes as a consequence of a consensus through consultation among the council of a chosen few termed as “Shura” (42:38 Quran) (not necessarily legitimized through popular franchise) as was the case of selection of Hazrat Umar by Hazrat Abu Bakar who was nominated as Caliph despite mass agitation. This form of Executive is then expanded through the Quranic injunctions, the sayings of the Prophet (Haddith), and the traditions of the Prophet (Sunnah). Whereas, the election of an Executive in democracy

Page 3 of 9

is obtained through the exercise of free will of those parliamentary representatives who earlier get authorized by the general will of people expressed in form of their individual popular vote.

In addition, one more prominent difference between Khilafa and Democracy originates from the notion of Legislation (Goodman: 51). In Khilafa laws of life are already there; vocally articulated and clearly spelt out in the Quran. Neither the Holy Prophet nor the Caliph, nor anybody else could ever amend alter or add to or subtract these laws. In case of issues not covered therein one is supposed to refer the same to Ijema and ultimately Ijetihad. These laws, nevertheless, stay open to interpretations. Comparatively, Democracy gives parliament and the other statutory bodies, democratic framework a blank cheque to develop the legal mechanisms as suited to a particular region, people, and set of circumstances. Besides, laws thus formulated, also remain elastic to be further amended, revised, revoked, or altogether annulled in accordance with the requirement of the causative contexts. Hence, one may conclude that laws in Khilafa are divinely ordained and fixed with the Quran, the Hadith, the Sunnah, the Ijema, and the Ijetihad as its only sources; whereas in Democracy the law-making is left to people through participatory parliamentary process.

Another difference between Khilafa and Democracy lies in the procedure of bringing down the Executive if the people undergo a genuine need to do so. In Khilafa once a Caliph is chosen, he is chosen. Nobody can demolish his rule. His will continue ruling as long as he lives. This is the reason that we do not see any of the Caliphs among four during the Rashidiyah Caliphate, to have either stepped down by himself or having been voted out of office. Moreover, the caliphate form of government was not also time-barred as Democratic form of government today is, which is time framed through specific tenure for an Executive followed by fresh term through polls.

Furthermore, Khilafa and Democracy also part ways with each other in terms of their respective fundamental “spirit” (Sadri: 22). Khilafa is essentially religious in spirit even when it takes a democratic form its character and content still remains religious. As we find inscribed in clearest terms in the preamble of constitution of Pakistan, which states: “Sovereign is Allah-the Executive seeks his/her authority from That Source thereof and wins his legitimacy of the sought powers from the people through exercise of their free will in form of election. This is how the very name of Pakistan seeks it rationale as “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. In comparison the spirit of democracy remains

Page 4 of 9

secular even when it is given a religious mould. For, until recently there has been vigorous talk all over the world of an Islamic mode of democracy practiced by quite a few Muslim states across the globe.

One final difference (within the limitations of this discussion) between Khilafa and Democracy is in the varying degree of individual freedom of man. For instance, at the time a caliph is selected or nominated in the Khilafa pattern of government, the masses enjoy merely minimized option of saying either Yes or No. They do not have more than one option (nominee) to pick their choice from. Worse still, taking Muslim History as witness, one finds to one’s shock and dismay that NO in such contexts (specially after Khilafa-e-Rashdiya) had more than often been taken tantamount to total treason. And those who thus negated were relegated to death as renegades. In contrast, Democracy offers masses a wide range of choice in the areas of candidature, exercise of free will and fair decision without the disastrous risk of loss of life.

Proposed Modus Operandi To Restore Islamic Political System in Pakistan:

Taking the deliberations forward, let me, first of all, affirm that it is every way possible to restore Khilafa in Pakistan. I thus now set about evolving my elaborate opinion on the modus operandi of doing so. Though at the out-set I have spelt out in broad outline the major apparent variants between Khilafa and Democracy, yet in principle, I stand convinced that there are several facets where these two tend more to match than mismatch. Terminologically, the two stand divorced but, in essence, they are in unison. So, guided by the essence premise, we still can revive the Islamic Political System, albeit, in its advanced, democratic outlook, nomenclature and form. In essence, therefore both Khilafa and Democracy are identical to each other.

Islamic Political System like Democracy takes its origin, legitimacy, authority and popular mandate by winning free will of the majority of masses each of whom Islam (Khilafa) too take as Allah’s vicegerent on earth: As corroborates the Glorious Quran:

Page 5 of 9

Thus, universal acceptance of man as Allah’s trustee in this context matches with the very soul of democracy (Tamimi: 78).

Another way through we can restore Khilafa in Pakistan is through putting the constitution of Pakistan at the highest pedestal. In both, letter as well as in spirit, the constitution of Pakistan safeguards all the democratic ideals that also stand as the core constituents of Faith in Islam/Khilafa: Rule of Law, Transparent Elections, Independent Judiciary, Democratic Form of Government, Social Justice and Good Governance. Hence only by adhering to the principle of Supremacy of the constitution of Pakistan we become enabled to restore Khilafa in maximum magnitude if not in entirety.

Moreover, there are several supportive voices emanating from the authentic persona within Islamic world: the Tunisian Islamic leader and political exile, Rashid Ghanoushi in an interview in 1992 with “London Observer” says, “If by democracy is meant the liberal model of government prevailing in the West……… a System under which the people Freely chose their representatives and leaders , in which there is an alteration of power, as well as all freedoms and human rights for the public, the Muslims will find nothing in their religion to oppose democracy….”. Iran’s President Mohammad Khatami, in a television interview in June before that country’s presidential elections, noted that “….the existing democracies do not necessarily follow one formula or aspect. It is possible that a democracy may lead to a liberal system or it may be a democracy with the inclusion of religious norms in the government. We have accepted the third option.” Khatami presents a view common among the advocates of Islamic Democracy that “today world democracies are suffering from a major vacuum which is the vacuum of spirituality,” and that Islam/Khilafa can provide the frame-work for combining a democracy with spirituality and religious government.” Ali Shariati, who made important contributions to the ideological development of the Islamic revolution in Iran, wrote in “On the Sociology of Islam” that tawhid means regarding the whole universe as a unity, instead of dividing it into this world and the here-after………spirit and body.” In this world view, the separation of religion from politics creates a spiritual vacuum in the public arena and opens the way for political systems that have no sense of moral values. Ayatollah Baqir al-sadr, the Iraqi Shi’iti leader says in “Islamic Political System”, that “the people have a general right to dispose off their affairs on the basis of the principle of the constitution.” What this meant for the constitutional system of Islamic Republic of Iran, which was influenced by the al-sadr’s thought, was affirmed by President Khatami: “people play a fundamental role in bringing a

Page 6 of 9

government to power, in supervising the government and possibly the replacement of the government without any tension and problems.”

In addition, in the context of “Universal Acceptance of Man” as a fountainhead of power, Sudanese intellectual Abdel Wahab El Affandi in October, 2000 edition of Islam 21: Observers: “No Muslim questions the sovereignty of God or the rule of Shariah. However, most Muslims do (and did) have misgivings about any claims by one person that he is sovereign. The sovereignty of one man contradicts the sovereignty of God, for all men are equal in front of God…. Blind obedience to one-man rule is contrary to Islam.”

Keeping with the Prophetic tradition too, we can restore Islamic Political System to Pakistan, we see that the Prophet (S.A.W.W) handed over the preservation, propagation, and implementation of the faith to the entire community of the faithful advising them to choose their leader from among themselves on the basis of all round fitness, irrespective of tribe, race or wealth. He said: “Follow your leader even if he is a Negro with tangled hair.”

Moving further ahead in the same direction, we read Abu al-Ala Mawdudi in “The Islamic Way of Life”: “The authority of the caliphate is bestowed on the entire group of people, the community as a whole……. Such a society carries a responsibility of the caliphate as a whole and each of its individual(s) shares the Divine Caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Khilafa and can be restored in Pakistan too. Islamic society enjoys the rights and the powers of the caliphate of Good….. and in this respect all individuals are equal.”

Let us summarize the type of State and Society which Khilafa envisages as an ideal pattern and which we find in compatibility with the constitution of Pakistan and thus stands all restorable(Kramer: Islam And Democracy):

(1) Sovereignty belongs to God alone whose chief attributes are wisdom, Justice and Love. He desires human beings to assimilate these attributes in their thoughts, words and deeds.

(2) Though ultimately God moulds destinies, He has endowed man with free-will so that he may attune his will to the will and purpose of God.

(3) In matters of faith, God has compelled nobody to believe; the ways of righteousness and their opposites have been clearly indicated. Anyone may believe or disbelieve and bear the consequences. There must not be any compulsion, In the matter of faith. An imposed faith is no faith at all. Everybody should be free to follow his own way of life, either because of personal preference or because of his belonging to

Page 7 of 9

community, provided his conduct is not subversive of fundamental morality or disruptive of the peace of the realm or does not trespass on the legitimate freedom of others.

(4) An Islamic State is not theocratic but ideological. The right and duties of its citizens shall be determined by the extent to which they identify themselves with this ideology.

(5) Non-Muslims can live peacefully as citizens of a Muslim realm. They are free not to take part in the defense of the state, and in lieu of this exemption pay a poll tax which shall entitle them to complete protection of life, property and liberty in the practice of their faith. If they are prepared to defend the realm as loyal citizens, they shall be exempt from this tax.

(6) There shall be no racial discrimination within a Muslim realm. People become high or low only because of their character.

(7) All avenues of economic exploitation must be blocked so that wealth does not circulate in the hands of the few.

(8) A person shall be free to earn as much as he can by legitimate means, without exploitation or fraud. But wealth, even legitimately acquired beyond a certain minimum, shall be subject to a tax on capital. This shall be an inalienable part of a Muslim policy [state].

(9) Women shall enjoy an independent economic status. All their inherited wealth and their personal earnings shall be their own property which they can dispose of as they please.

(10) A truly Islamic State can’t be a monarchical state. It must be a democratic republic in which the president is elected by a free vote of the community on the basis of his capacity and character.

(11) It is incumbent on the ruler to have a council of advisors and consultants for purposes of legislation or major decisions. They shall be chosen on the grounds of their wisdom, experience and integrity. The mode of their selection is left to circumstances. In matters not pertaining to faith, non-Muslims are not debarred from consultation.

(12) There shall be no special class of priests in an Islamic society, though persons leading [a] better religious life and possessing [a] better knowledge of religious affairs have a legitimate claim to honour. They shall enjoy no special privileges, legal or economic.

Page 8 of 9

(13) There shall be perfect equality of opportunity and equality before [the] law. The law shall make no distinction between a Muslim and a non-Muslim either in civil or [in] criminal cases. Every citizen shall have the right to seek a judicial decision-even against the head of the state.

There were many instances of this in early Islam. The Caliph Umar appeared in the Court as a party in a suit and the judge stood up as a matter of respect, at which the Caliph said that he has started with an unjust act honoring one party more than the other; how could the other party have confidence in his sense of justice? The judiciary was made independent of the executive. In periods of monarchical absolutism, when the judiciary began to be influenced by the men in power, the great jurist Imam Abu Hanifah preferred to be whipped and sent to prison [rather] than accept the post of a judge. He was imbued with the original spirit of Islam which desired uncorrupted justice between man and man. “Do not refrain from justice even if it goes against you.” (Quran 4:136); “Let not the hostility of a party tends to make you unjust towards it.”

CONCLUSION:

To conclude, we may say that Khilafa’s original vision, which the best Muslim minds have never ceased to cherish even under most adverse circumstances, is democratic. This observation has further been supported by Louay Safi, a member of the board of directors of the Washington, D.C-based Centre for the study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) who professes: “I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy…. Ultimately could evolve a bit differently in different cultures. It doesn’t have to be a replica of the democracy we have in the West.” As Safi’s words hold true in the global context, so they do in the context of Pakistan. Pakistan must be made safe for democracy if we, as a whole, have to develop the external intrinsic values of human life which our religion believes to originate in the nature of God. This verse of Quran supports this conviction: “The nature of God, on which He molded the nature of man; the laws of God’s creation are inalterable-this is the right religion.” (Quran 30:30)

ENDS

(Bibliography and references available on the next page)

Page 9 of 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Esposito. J. L & Voll. J. O: Humanities: November/December 2001. Volume 22/

November 6

Hakim. A. Dr: The Prophet and His Message. Chapter 19. Published by the

Institute of Islamic Culture, Club Road, Lahore, Pakistan.

1987

Handwork. B: National Geographic News, updated October 24, 2003

Kramer. Martin: Islam vs. Democracy

Mawdudi. A. A. S: The Islamic Way of Life: Islamic Publication. Pvt. Ltd.

Lahore, Pakistan. 1991

Ibid Islamic State: Philosophy, Social Structure and Principles of

Governance, Ibid, 1998

Ibid: The Muslim State. Ibid

Lenn Evan Goodman (2003), Islamic Humanism, p. 155,

Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195135806.

Mahmoud Sadri and Ahmad Sadri (eds.) 2002 Reason, Freedom, and

Democracy in Islam: Essential Writings of Abdolkarim Soroush, Oxford

University Press

Azzam S. Tamimi 2001 Rachid Ghannouchi: A Democrat within Islamism, Oxford University Press

Khan L. Ali 2003 A Theory of Universal Democracy, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Discussions with a few fellow Professors, Classroom

Interactions & Teaching input.