Islam and Democracy:

Perceptions and Misperceptions

Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq

Courtesy: An abridged version of this article appeared in Message International, May 2002; it has also
been serialized in The Independent Bangladesh, beginning on June 16, 2002; Feedback on this article is
welcome; farooqm59@yahoo.com

Islam continues to be at the center stage of the global community. Yet the Muslim world - nearly 1/5th of
the world population - is currently in a dysfunctional state, caught between the modern as well as the
mundane aspirations of life on one hand and a disconnect from the past glories and transcending values -
-beliefs that these people identify with, on the other.

Muslim world would like to progress past its problems without delinking from Islam. The western
countries, currently dominating the world, supposedly prefer that the Muslim world move forward, too, but
also delink itself from Islam except at the personal or spiritual level, and most definitely, not upset the
current global status quo.

Western countries are mostly democratic and they claim that they would like to see the spread of
democracy around the world. They consider democracy to be an indispensable modern ideal that, they
contend, is quite conducive to attaining modern aspirations of life. The current superstructure of the world
- defined in terms of the economic, political, military and technological power and the accompanying
apparatus - definitely reflects the strength of democracy. Modern superpowers, such as the former Soviet
Union, that did not adopt democracy, have collapsed. Another major power, China, despite some
economic success, offers a significantly lower standard of living than any western countries.

Democracy is identified as a cornerstone of western civilization and it is strongly prescribed for the rest
of the world and humanity. Indeed, sometimes it is even promoted as a panacea. Discourses involving
Islam, Muslim world and democracy are proliferating. But what really is the relationship between Islam
and democracy? Are they even compatible?

It seems that there are four major groups with two broad agreements on this issue. The first group from
among (often Islamophobic) non-Muslims and the second group from among Muslims (often
westophobic) broadly agree - albeit for different reasons - that Islam and democracy are incompatible.
The first group believes that Islam is inherently autocratic and it lacks the philosophical and historical
basis for nurturing any viable democratic tradition. The second group believes that democracy is a
corrupt, manipulated system of the West and theologically it is - in their view - inherently incompatible with
Islam.

The other two groups also have a broad agreement on the opposite side. The first of these two groups
include non-Muslims (individuals and institutions) who believe that Islam is quite compatible with
democracy and, in the interest of global peace and prosperity the current dysfunctional state ought to be
reframed on a democratic foundation. The last group represents Muslims who also concur with their
counterparts among non-Muslims. These Muslims do not see any conflict between Islam and democracy.
Some would even go further and argue that democracy is integral to the Islamic way of life. Thus, there
are clusters of perceptions and misperceptions and this is only a humble and partial attempt to hopefully
disentangle some of those.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1772541

The Mutual Phobia, Distrust and Antagonism

For a host of historical reasons, there is a deep mutual distrust and antagonism that now overshadow the
relationship between Islam and the West. Once Islam was a global power and represented a vibrant,
dynamic and towering civilization. It led the world in virtually every aspect. The West during that period
was in medieval or dark age. The decline of the Muslim world and the rise of the West came about
through a sustained and violent confrontation, the legacy of which still weighs heavily on the mutual
relationship.

The rise of the west did not merely mean the breakdown of the Muslim world; it also emerged as a
process of systematic subjugation of the same. Under the western colonial rule, a systematic campaign
was undertaken not only to undermine the military and economic power of the Muslim world, but also its
social, cultural and moral foundation. However, it would be unfair to blame the west for much of the
problems of the Muslim world, because there were deep-rooted internal problems, the weight of which
made the Muslim world very weak and vulnerable internally, and rather predictably, through
confrontations with other powers, the Muslim world has crumbled.

If the future of the Muslim world and the West is to be independently changed, then the path unavoidably
would be sustained confrontation. However, if the prevailing problems are viewed as mutually
interdependent, there is a potential for partnership and collaboration. Religiously speaking, Islam teaches
vying with each other in good causes. To each is a goal to which Allah turns him; then strive together (as
in a race) towards all that is good.1 Islam also exhorts seeking common grounds (for example, between
Muslims and Ahl al-Kitab, i.e., the Christians and the Jews). O People of the Book! Come to common
2
terms as between us and you. Conscientious and sensible people, of course, would lean toward an
approach based on cooperation and empathy than toward an approach based on needless confrontation.

Recognizing and understanding the mutual fear, distrust and antagonism are important because there is
significant mutual stereotyping. The hatred of the west is matched by many Muslims who contend that
anything western is bad or unislamic. Similarly stereotypical, the new Western perspective of the clash of
civilizations considers Islam as a sustained and powerful threat.

If such perception and approach of the west toward Islam are merely dictated by one-sided interest in
maintaining the status quo in terms of the global domination, where the Muslim world is dysfunctional and
marginalized, then the clash is inevitable and the problems related to instability, violence, or widespread
human deprivations or humiliation are already knocking at the door of the west. The sensible path should
be guided by mutual respect and empathy.

Viewpoint #1: Islam and democracy are incompatible

Non-Muslims who argue that Islam and democracy are incompatible fall in two subcategories. One group
feels this way to assert or underscore that democracy is a new, western value and institution. Some also
are afraid that a democratic outfit of the Muslim world might undermine the current western domination.
After all, these are barbaric and backward people. Modern ideas are unsuitable to them. These people
are better suited for autocratic, repressive rules either under current despots or the western puppets. This
group of non-Muslims suffers from acute Islamophobia based on their stereotypical understanding of
Islam and prejudiced viewpoint of the western interest. Some non-Muslim scholars, such as Samuel
Huntington and Bernard Lewis, take a pessimistic scholarly view that historically the Muslim world has
been under non-democratic rules for nearly fourteen centuries, going back to the period that ended with
the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and thus a democratic culture has not been internally in existence in the

1
The Quran 2/al-Baqarah/148.
2
The Quran 3/ale Imran/64.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1772541

Muslim world. Also, from their perspective, they find little support in the scripture or ideology of Islam - as
reflected in the Islamic history - to be optimistic.

The Muslims who agree with the above group that Islam and democracy are incompatible have a different
reason. They basically find any idea or institution of western origin to be unpalatable. But going one step
further, they argue that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible because of the difference in
the concept of sovereignty. According to them, in Islam sovereignty belongs to God alone. Human beings
are mere executors of His Will. On the other hand, in democracy (or, to be precise, secular, western
democracy), sovereignty belongs to people, which in the view of these Muslims constitutes shirk or
polytheism. Many notable Muslim personalities, including Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (in his earlier
writings), have rejected the secular western democracy, at least at the philosophical level. According to
such perspective, Islam, speaking from the view-point of political philosophy, is the very antithesis of
secular Western democracy . . . [Islam] altogether repudiates the philosophy of popular sovereignty and
rears its polity on the foundations of the sovereignty of God and the vicegerency (Khilafah) of man.3

Unfortunately, even though in his later life his view about the compatibility between Islamic political
system and democracy was much more favorable and positive, what Maududi articulated earlier as a
philosophical rejection of secular western democracy has been perceived or upheld by many Muslims
and non-Muslims as rejection of democracy per se. It is not all too uncommon among Muslims, especially
among revivalist Muslims, that Khilafah is what defines the Islamic political system, and they are not
willing to trade or adjust Khilafah with democracy in any way.

Are Islam and democracy then incompatible? Well, the reality is that they are not. The abovementioned
view of Muslims is naive and fallacious, and furthermore, to a great extent, shaped by a sort of dogmatic
label-orientation.

Viewpoint #2: Islam and democracy are more than compatible!

There are many among non-Muslims (individuals and institutions) who see no conflict between Islam and
democracy and they would like to see the Muslim world pursue a path of change and transformation
toward democracy.

Robin Wright, a well-known American expert on the Middle East and the Muslim world writes: neither
4
Islam nor its culture is the major obstacle to political modernity.

In his magnum opus Asian Drama, Nobel Laureate Gunnar Myrdal identified a set of modernization
ideals that included democracy. In regard to religion in general and Islam in particular, he had this to say:
The basic doctrine of the old religions in the region - Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism - are not necessarily
inimical to modernization. For example, Islamic, and less explicitly, Buddhist doctrines are advanced to
support reforms along the lines of modernization ideals.5 If democracy is intimately related to
egalitarianism, he further comments: Islam and Buddhism can provide support for one of the
modernization ideals in particular: egalitarian reforms.6

3
Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi, Political Theory of Islam, in Khurshid Ahmad (ed.). Islam: Its
Meaning and Message (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1976), pp. 159-161.
4
Robin Wright, Islam and Liberal Democracy: Two Visions of Reformation, Journal of
Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1996, pp. 64-75.
5
Gunnar Myrdal. Asian drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, Twentieth Century Fund,
1968, p. 78.
6
Ibid, p. 80.
Confronting the view of those who suggest the incompatibility, John O. Voll and John L. Esposito, two
bridge-builders between Islam and the West articulate: The Islamic heritage, in fact, contains concepts
that provide a foundation for contemporary Muslims to develop authentically Islamic programs of
democracy.7

In explaining some common western misperception, Graham E. Fuller (former Vice-Chairman of the
National Intelligence Council at the CIA) writes: Most western observers tend to look at the phenomenon
of political Islam as if it were butterfly in a collection box, captured and skewered for eternity, or as a set
of texts unbendingly prescribing a single path. This is why some scholars who examine its core writings
proclaim Islam to be incompatible with democracy, as if any religion in its origins was about democracy at
all.8

Turning to their own Islamic root and heritage, there are now a growing number of voices among Muslims
who are convincingly making the case that Islam and democracy are not just compatible; rather, their
association is inevitable, because Islamic political system is based on Shura (mutual consultation).
9 10 11 12 13
Khaled Abou el-Fadl, Ziauddin Sardar, Rachid Ghannouchi, Hasan Turabi, Fathi Osman, Fetullah
14 15 16
Gulen, Tariq Ramadan, and most notably, Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, are just to name a few among
the contemporary Islamic scholars and intellectuals who are arduously working to move both the Muslim
world and the West toward better mutual understanding in regard to the relationship between Islam and
democracy .

The hangover from semantics and labels

All the pertinent discourses seem to hinge on labels that are stereotypically used by various sides.

Democracy can be defined as government by the people; especially, rule of the majority; a government
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a
system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; the common people especially
when constituting the source of political authority; the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions
17
or privileges.

The reality is that Islam is not only compatible with the above aspects that define or describe democracy,
but also that those aspects are essential to Islam. If we can cut through the labels and semantics, we find

7
John Voll and John Esposito. Islams Democratic Essence, Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 1, No.
3, September 1994,.
8
Graham Fuller. The Future of Political Islam, Foreign Affairs, Mar-April, 2002, pp. 48-60.
9
Khaled Abou El Fadl, et. al, Islam and the challenge of democracy, Princeton University Press,
2004, http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html.
10
Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies. The no-nonsense guide to Islam, Verso, 2004, pp.
125-126.
11
Azzam Tamimi. Rachid Ghannouchi: a democrat within Islamism, Oxford University Press,
2001.
12
Arthur Lowrie (ed). Islam, democracy, the state and the West: a round table with Dr. Hasan
Turabi, May 10, 1992, World and Islam Studies Enterprise, Tampa, Florida, 1993.
13
Fathi Osman. Islam in a Modern State: Democracy and the Concept of Shura, Occasional
Paper Series, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University, 2001.
14
The Fountain. Fetullah Gulen: His Remarkable Achievements, Issue 23, July-September
1998, http://www.fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=610.
15
Tariq Ramadan. Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, Oxford University Press, 2009,
16
Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Islams Approach Toward Democracy, Message International,
April/May 2002, http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC0210-1769.
17
m-w.com. Merriam-Webster Dictionary [online].
that Islamic governance, when distilled from all the extraneous aspects, has at least three core features,
based on the Quranic vision and guidance on one hand and the experience under the Prophet (s) and
the Rightly Guided Caliphs on the other.

a. CONSTITUTIONAL: Islamic government is essentially a "constitutional" government, where

constitution represents the agreement of the governed to govern by a defined and agreed
upon framework of rights and duties. For Muslims, the source of the constitution is the
Qur'an, the Sunnah, and anything deemed relevant, effective, but not inconsistent with Islam.
No authority, except the governed, has the right to put away (abrogate) or change such a
constitution. Thus, Islamic governance cant be an autocratic, hereditary or military rule. Such
a system of governance is egalitarian in nature, and egalitarianism is one of the hallmarks of
Islam. It is also widely acknowledged that the beginning of the Islamic polity in Madinah was
based on a constitutional foundation and pluralistic framework involving non-Muslims as well.

b. PARTICIPATORY: An Islamic political system is participatory. From establishing the

institutional structure of governance to operating it, the system is participatory. It means that
the leadership and the policies will be conducted on the basis of full, gender-neutral
participation of the governed through a popular electoral process. Muslims can use their
creativity using the Islamic guidelines and human experience to date to institute, and
continuously refine, their processes. This participatory aspect is the Islamic process of Shura
(mutual consultation).

c. ACCOUNTABLE: This is an essential corollary to a constitutional/participatory system. The

leadership and the holders of authority are accountable to people within an Islamic
framework. Islamic framework here means that all Muslims are accountable to Allah and his
divine guidance. But that is more in a theological sense. The practical accountability relates
to people. Thus, the Khulafa ar-Rashidoon were both Khalifatur Rasool (representative of the
Messenger) as well as Khalifatul Muslimeen (representative of the Muslims).

This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to
democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs
to people. This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign,
but he has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has
decided not to function as the Sovereign in this world. He has blessed humanity with revelations and his
essential guidance. Muslims are to shape and conduct their lives, individually and collectively, according
to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation
and implementation are human.

Whether people will choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose
Islam or another path, it is a human decision. Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on
Islam or not is a human decision. Whether Muslims would choose an Islamic form of governance or not is
a human decision. It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing
negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for
compulsion or imposition.

What happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict? For example, if the majority of the
society does not want to uphold Islam, the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not
want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the
foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion. God IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic
reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad (and we
could be wrong), where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation
(and we can err), when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the
evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God
is not acting as a sovereign in this world. To think like that is not to show due and full respect to the very
freedom and responsibility that God has entrusted us with.

Indeed, thinking like this leaves room for big abuse, as someone or some institution declares that God is
the sovereign, and then they impose their own rule or whims in the name of the sovereign. History is full
of such abuses, where Shariah has been enforced or allowed for the people, but some powerful or
privileged people remained above the Shariah. Even if one person remains above such Shariah, that is
not true rule of law or Shariah at all.

Thus, based on the above core features, it is important to recognize that Islam is incompatible with
monarchy, military rule, dictatorship, or any other type of authoritarian political system. Islam envisions a
constitutional, participatory, and accountable system of governance. This is the Islamic concept of
Khilafah. However, we need to be less concerned about terminology, label or semantics than substance.

In its fundamental character based on those core features, there is no conflict between democracy and
Islamic political system, except that in an Islamic political system people cannot call themselves Islamic
while themselves being in conflict with Islam. That is why Muslims should not shun democracy in a
general sense as conflicting with Islam; rather, they should welcome it. After pointing out the
shortcomings of democracy, Shaikh Qaradawi rather emphatically asserts: the tools and guaranties
created by democracy are as close as can ever be to the realization of the political principles brought to
18
this world by Islam to put a leash on the ambitions and whims of rulers. As Dr. Osman, one of the
19
leading Muslim intellectuals of our times, remarked: democracy is the best application of Shura."

This issue of Islam and democracy is important not just for Muslims, but also for the west. As Voll and
Esposito argue, democracy in the west is arguably not a model of perfection at the end of history; rather,
a reconceptualization of democracy is viewed as a continuous imperative. [S]ince we are not at the end
of history and the United States has not yet solved all of the problems of survival in a heterogeneous
20
world, it is as important for us to continually adapt to changing conditions as it is for Muslims. Voll and
Esposito's well-articulated views are based on a common-ground-seeking approach, not on a sophomoric
us vs. them, or good vs. evil. Rather, Esposito contends, we all have something to benefit from each
other in light of our human experience.

The challenges ahead

The Muslims who consider Islam and democracy to be incompatible need to discard their biased position
based on misperceptions. In addition, those who consider these to be compatible need to jettison their
apologetic approach. If Muslims find adequate convergence between Islam and democracy, it is not
because some or many scholars - Muslims or non-Muslims - think so and that they would like us to tread
the path of democracy. Rather, Islamic governance - a constitutional, participatory and accountable form -
is essentially based on the consent of the people or those who are governed, and thus democratic. The
benefits of accumulated human experience are important to us Muslims as well. However, our interest in
Islamic governance, based on peoples consent, is not and should not be because the west wants us to
follow them or because we need to modernize ourselves; rather, because we need to cherish and uphold
consent-based governance, founded on the core principles and values of Islam.

Muslims must also recognize the historical fact that for nearly fourteen centuries the system of
governance, though progressive and dynamic compared to the other contemporary societies and

18
Qaradawi. Op. cit.
19
Fathi Osman. "Islam Should be Recognized as Dynamic, Flexible Religion," Interview with al-
Hewar Center (Washington, DC), May 6, 1998, Retrieved on September 10, 2007, from al-Hewar Web
Site: http://www.alhewar.com/FathiOsman.html.
20
John Voll and John Esposito. Islam and Democracy: Rejoinder, Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 1,
No. 4, December 1994.
civilizations of the time, has been based not on what is popularly described as Khilafah. Since the time to
Muawiya, the Khilafah turned into Mulukiyaah (hereditary monarchy). That was an important turning point,
because this replacement of Khilafah with Mulukiyyah was actually a counter-revolution against the
revolution of the Prophet Muhammad. The political legacy that followed and on the basis of which has
evolved our current dysfunctional state is rooted in that counter-revolution, not the revolution of the
Prophet and the legacy of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. One may find things to disagree about some of the
thoughts of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, but his characterization of this crucial turning point as a counter-
21
revolution is an important contribution toward understanding the hereditary political institutions in the
Muslim world that stands in contradiction to the vision and values of the Quran and the legacy and
heritage of the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

There is also a constructive role to be played by the non-Muslim world. Whenever Muslims find such
convergence with democracy, those among the non-Muslims who care about democracy should desist
the characterization that now Muslims are modernizing themselves and deviating from Islam. Such
characterization only serves to legitimize and reinforce the radicals and the traditionalists, and their
radical/traditional interpretations. Moreover, there is no short-cut to a presumably monolithic, mature
democracy. As Graham Fuller writes: [M]odern liberal governance is more likely to take root through
organically evolving liberal Islamist trends at the grassroot level than from imported Western modules of
instant democracy. Fuller admonishes his fellow westerners: Non-Muslims should understand that
democratic values are latent in Islamic thought if one wants to look for them, and that it would not be
more natural and organic for the Muslim world to derive contemporary liberal practices from its own
sources than to import them wholesale from foreign cultures.22

On another front, a mutual challenge has to be met. Muslims need to converge toward a consensus that
they would settle for only constitutional, participatory and accountable form of government (call it
democracy or anything you like). Non-Muslims, especially the West, also need to realize that, just like the
West or Islam is not monolithic, so is not democracy. If they would like to see a new world where all
people seek and value constitutional, participatory and accountable form of governance, then, once
again, the substance is what matters, not label or semantics.

Lastly, even though the West regularly sermonizes the rest of the world about the virtue of democracy,
the West - or the dominant powers of the West - fundamentally remains an obstacle against the
emergence of democracy in the Muslim world, because the current global domination is more compatible
and safer with autocratic or despotic rulers - some of which are puppets of the West and some are kept
cornered or marginalized by the West. This Western power block is not willing to trust any rise of Islam,
even if the Muslims believe in and uphold a constitutional, participatory, and accountable form of
government.

Muslims still have a sacred and a historical duty to rise up to a dual challenge. Internally, they must
persevere to establish a system of governance that is Islamic (and thus democratic). They must also rise
up to challenge the Western hegemony that only sermonizes about democracy, but actually works
against any genuine democratic transformation in the Muslim world.

If, in a problem-solving manner and in accordance with the guidance of Islam, Muslims desire to be
effective in dealing with the issues that deeply affect them, they need to have the unshakable conviction
that despite their current dismal condition, their role is not merely to work out their own problems, but also
they do have something valuable to offer to the humanity and the West in balancing the extremities of the
modern times. Indeed, the West could not have been what it is today without critical contributions from
the Islamic civilization as more than just a bridge-builder. While the West may not readily acknowledge it,

21
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Khelafat wa Mulukiyya (Khilafat and Monarchy), Lahore: Idarah-i-
Tarjuman-ul-Quran, 24th edition, 1996.
22
Fuller, op. cit.
Muslims must not forget this historical fact when assessing their present situation and taking stock of their
potentials and responsibilities.

23
While some cant get over their preoccupation with the clash of civilization paradigm, especially in the
context of Islam and the West, there are conscientious western scholars who look forward to a new phase
of relationship between Islam and the West: If ever the opposition of the great societies of the East and
24
west is to be replaced by cooperation, the mediation of Islam is an indispensable condition." Muslims
also need to realize their historic responsibility in this regard.

23
Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72 No. 3, Summer 1993,
pp. 22-49.
24
H.A.R. Gibb, Whither Islam: A Survey of Modern Movements in the Moslem World, Routledge,
2000, p. 379.