ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE

NAME: AMAN PRAKASH SINGH

CLASS: BA LLB REGULAR
(3rdsemester)
TOPIC: IMPACT OF DEMOCRACY IN
ISLAM.
SUBMITTED TO: Dr. GHULAM
YAZDANI
 WESTERN DEMOCRACY

ORIGIN OF WESTERN DEMOCRACY1

Western democracy traces its origins—and its name—to the European 18th-
century, also known as the Age of Enlightenment. At the time, the vast majority of
European states were monarchies, with political power held either by
the monarch or the aristocracy. The possibility of democracy had not been a
seriously considered political theory since classical antiquity and the widely held
belief was that democracies would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their
policies due to the changing whims of the people. It was further believed that
democracy was contrary to human nature, as human beings were seen to be
inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain their destructive
impulses. Many European monarchs held that their power had been ordained by
God and that questioning their right to rule was tantamount to blasphemy.

These conventional views were challenged at first by a relatively small group of

Enlightenment intellectuals, who believed that human affairs should be guided
by reason and principles of liberty and equality. They argued that all people are
created equal and therefore political authority cannot be justified on the basis of
"noble blood", a supposed privileged connection to God or any other characteristic
that is alleged to make one person superior to others. They further argued that
governments exist to serve the people—not vice versa—and that laws should apply
to those who govern as well as to the governed (a concept known as rule of law).

Some of these ideas began to be expressed in England in the 17th century. There
was renewed interest in Magna Carta, and passage of the Petition of Right in 1628
and Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 established certain liberties for subjects. The idea

1
The spread of Democracy in the 20th century, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA.
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/The-spread-of-democracy-in-the-20th-century>
of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation
during the Putney Debates of 1647. After the English Civil Wars(1642–1651) and
the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which
codified certain rights and liberties. The Bill set out the requirement for regular
elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the
monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of Europe at the time, royal absolutism would
not prevail. This led to significant social change in Britain in terms of the position
of individuals in society and the growing power of Parliament in relation to
the monarch.

By the late 18th century, leading philosophers of the day had published works that
spread around the European continent and beyond. These ideas and beliefs inspired
the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which gave birth to the
ideology of westernism and instituted forms of government that attempted to apply
the principles of the Enlightenment philosophers into practice. Neither of these
forms of government was precisely what we would call a western democracy we
know today (the most significant differences being that voting rights were still
restricted to a minority of the population and slavery remained a legal institution)
and the French attempt turned out to be short-lived, but they were the prototypes
from which western democracy later grew. Since the supporters of these forms of
government were known as westerns, the governments themselves came to be
known as western democracies.

When the first prototypical western democracies were founded, the westerns
themselves were viewed as an extreme and rather dangerous fringe group that
threatened international peace and stability. The conservative monarchists who
opposed westernism and democracy saw themselves as defenders of traditional
values and the natural order of things and their criticism of democracy seemed
vindicated when Napoleon Bonaparte took control of the young French Republic,
reorganized it into the first French Empire and proceeded to conquer most of
Europe. Napoleon was eventually defeated and the Holy Alliance was formed in
Europe to prevent any further spread of westernism or democracy.

However, western democratic ideals soon became widespread among the general
population and over the 19th century traditional monarchy was forced on a
continuous defensive and withdrawal. The dominions of the British
Empire became laboratories for western democracy from the mid 19th century
onward. In Canada, responsible government began in the 1840s and in Australia
and New Zealand, parliamentary government elected by male suffrage and secret
ballot was established from the 1850s and female suffrage achieved from the
1890s.

Reforms and revolutions helped move most European countries towards western
democracy. Westernism ceased being a fringe opinion and joined the political
mainstream. At the same time, a number of non-western ideologies developed that
took the concept of western democracy and made it their own. The political
spectrum changed; traditional monarchy became more and more a fringe view and
western democracy became more and more mainstream. By the end of the 19th
century, western democracy was no longer only a "western" idea, but an idea
supported by many different ideologies. After World War I and especially
after World War II, western democracy achieved a dominant position among
theories of government and is now endorsed by the vast majority of the political
spectrum.

Although western democracy was originally put forward by Enlightenment

westerns, the relationship between democracy and westernism has been
controversial since the beginning and was problematized in the 20th century. In his
book Freedom and Equality in a Western Democratic State, Jasper Doomen
posited that freedom and equality are necessary for a western democracy. The
research institute Freedom House today simply defines western democracy as an
electoral democracy also protecting civil liberties.

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY2

Islam is at present the second largest religion in the world. It has more than
one billion followers, mostly in the Arab world, Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa
and its numbers are increasing also in Europe and other parts of the World.
Recent events such as the Arab spring have given rise to a hope that
democracy can spread to the Islamic world. However, there are several
reasons to be skeptical.

Unlike the Bible’s position in Christianity, the Quran is reckoned to be of direct

divine origin. Believers in Islam have to obey not only God, but also Muhammad,
his messenger. The law of Sharia intervenes in both religious and secular life,
including penal punishments and judicial matters, as well as the acts of worship
and family life. Muslims are expected to accept the Quran as the word of God, and
the Sharia as the regulator of society and daily life.

One could argue that with a base of this kind, there is little room for the rights of
citizens and freedom of expression, which are key features in the Western
pluralistic model of democracy. Both civil liberties and political rights tend to be
neglected in the vast majority of Muslim countries today.

However, there are differences within the Islamic world. More secular countries
like Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Turkey are better at fulfilling democratic rights
than states that practice Sharia, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even though there can
be different interpretations of Sharia, there is a tendency that the implementation,

2
Tor J. Jacobsen NTNU, Islam And democracy, POPULAR SOCIAL SCIENCE
or even just the acceptance, of Islamic law could mean less emphasis on civil
liberties. Sharia can be viewed as an obstacle for democracy in the Muslim world.

The late Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington argued that there is a culture
barrier which prevents the spread of democracy. He is partly supported by
Michigan professor Ronald Inglehart who emphasizes what he names the post-
modern shift, which has its origin in the economic miracles that occurred first in
Western Europe and North America, and later in East Asia and Southeast Asia.
According to Inglehart, the post-modern shift takes focus away from both religion
and the state, and over to the individual.

The argument concerning democracy is that certain basic values must be in place
for a society to successfully become democratic. In other words, a society, which
has not experienced the post-modern shift, will experience difficulties
implementing democracy. Even though Western and Islamic societies agree on
several indicators of political values, they do differ when it comes to the question
of tolerance.

However, there are voices within the discipline of social science that are more
optimistic with regard to the future of democracy within Islam. The Binghampton
professor Ali Mazrui states that mores and values have changed rapidly in the West
in the last several decades as revolutions in technology and society progressed. He
assumes that Islamic countries will follow the rest of the world, as they now are
experiencing many of the same changes.

CLASH WITH RELIGION

One could argue that the teachings of the Quran and the laws of Sharia stand in
opposition to what most Westerners consider to be democratic ideals. Many
Islamic political groups claim that the nature of the state is of secondary
importance to the implementation of Sharia. These laws are not compatible with
many of the principles of democracy: examples are the limitations on free speech,
women’s rights, and minority rights. In contemporary practice of Sharia these
conditions are not respected. So even though the Quran does not prescribe any
particular system of government, the importance of Sharia is still an obstacle for
introducing Western democracy in the Islamic world.

Samuel Huntington pointed out that the Muslim world has not gone through the
same historical events as the West, which led to the development of liberal
democracy. Ronald Inglehart emphasizes the post-modern shift: that the Muslim
world has more basic values and beliefs than the West, and that religious authority
therefore plays a greater role.

Yet, the problem is maybe not what the Quran or the Sharia says. By all means,
Christianity has similarities. The problem is rather that all Muslims do, at base,
accept the sanctity of the Quran as the word of God, and the Sharia as the regulator
of society and daily life.

ANOTHER FORM OF DEMOCRACY?

One possible road to democracy would be to westernize/modernize. It has

happened in the past, one example being Turkey. However, most governments in
the Muslim world are relatively authoritarian while also committed to programs of
modernization. Thus, the authoritarian political establishments have become
identified with secularist approaches to politics and modernization. In many
Muslim states we are then faced with an opposition to authoritarian regimes
expressed through a reaffirmation of the Islamic identity and heritage. One then
has a different type of democratic movement, one lacking many of the ideals of the
Western liberal model.
Several Muslim states can be denoted as having at least to some extent political
freedom, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Senegal, and Turkey. These countries are
not considered best in class when it comes to civil liberties and political freedom.
However, there are other factors than religion that influence this picture. Poverty,
history, colonialism, and religion should all be taken into account.

Turkey chose the way of modernization. The Turkish nationalism under Kemal
Atatürk was also a reaction against Islamic culture and a demand for
westernization of society. The new republic dismantled the Turkish Kalifat in
1924, and in 1928 they introduced religious freedom. Turkey thus took a step from
the Islamic toward the European culture.

LOCAL ADJUSTMENT INSTEAD OF WESTERNIZATION

As already mentioned, one road to democracy would be to westernize/modernize.

Yet, most governments in the Muslim world are relatively authoritarian. One
question that could be raised is: Can there be a non-western path to democracy in
the Muslim world? Another one is: Are there other ways of achieving democracy
than to import the Western version of it?

Due to the strong sense of democracy being a Western concept, the debate in
Muslim states can easily shift from whether or not one wants democracy, to
whether or not one wishes to adopt a “foreign model”. Most societies have some
local traditions that have democratic elements in them. Western democracy not
only has its roots in Classical Greek democracy and Roman law, but also in the old
Germanic traditions of gatherings at the thing.

The Quran does not prescribe any particular system of government. However, there
are elements within Islam that could work in favor of democracy. In the Quran one
can find the Shura in which men are asked to settle their differences in patience by
mutual consultation. There is also a second democratic principle,
the ijma (concencus), meaning that important policies should have the support of a
significant segment of society.

However, these two local traditions do not amount to the centuries of history and
traditions that lies in the foundation of Western democracy. One important factor
that likely would be neglected in an Islamic-based majority founded on local
customs and traditions would be the protection of the rights of minorities. One
could argue that if people want to give away their Lockian “natural rights”, then
why should they not? Yet, you would then still have the problem of the minorities
who does not agree with the policies of the majority.

Unlike the West, Islam lacks a historical tradition of democracy. During the
Islamic empires and the Ottoman Empire, which covered much of the Muslim
world, a tendency developed to support authoritarian rule. Scholars like Ali Muzrai
might find room for an Islamic version of democracy, with consensus and majority
rule. But with base in the liberal democratic tradition of the West, one would see
several flaws with this type of democracy.

Another road toward democracy would be to westernize society, as Turkey to some

degree has already done. Yet, this is hardly conceivable in the foreseeable future,
due to the reaffirmation of the Islamic identity, and the ongoing conflicts and
sentiments in the Muslim world.

TWO ROADS TO DEMOCRACY

Compared to Western standards most Muslim countries of the World tend to have
a poor record of democracy. But one should take into account that most of these
states are developing countries and have a history of colonialism and violent
conflicts. There are Christian countries in many parts of the world who are no
better off than the Muslim ones.

Still, one should not downplay the role of religion. There are different perceptions
of the meaning of democracy. Some aspects of Western democracy could be
transferred to an Islamic country, like the principles of majority rule and equality.
But other aspects, like liberty, women’s rights, freedom of speech, and the
protection of minorities could prove more difficult to include in an Islamic version
of democracy. The Quran can be interpreted to support a variety of positions, and
the Sharia is troublesome, particularly in the areas of rights for women and non-
Muslims.

However, countries with Sharia, like Sudan and Iran, had abusive governments
before Islamic-oriented regimes rose to power. Secular based regimes like that of
Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have been among the worst violators of human
rights. The point here being that even though religion is an important factor when it
comes to the success of democracy in the Islamic world, other variables must be
taken into account.

We have looked at two routes for achieving a democratic Muslim world. One path
is to make Islam compatible with democracy. This implies a modernization or
westernization of society, as Kemal Atatürk’s Turkey is an example of. Even
though Turkey, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are not prime examples of liberal
democracies, one could still argue that this is a step in the right direction. But
again, achieving democracy could prove difficult. Westernization might not be a
very popular thing to introduce due to the ongoing conflicts in the contemporary
Muslim world.
The second route is to make democracy compatible with Islam. As already
mentioned one has the Islamic traditions of consultation and ijma. These are local
fundaments from which one could build an Islamic version of democracy. Other
components such as equality and participation are also inherent in Islam, as all
Muslims are partners in the community of believers and are equal before God.
Unfortunately Islam seems to be lacking other elements of what most Westerners
conceive as being important elements of democracy.

THE TRUTH ABOUT WHETHER ISLAMIC VALUES ARE

COMPATIBLE WITH WESTERN VALUES

Recent poll published by the BBC suggested the majority of British don’t think
Islam is compatible with Western values. 3This is a thoroughly concerning finding
considering how there are nearly 3 million people living in the UK who describe
themselves as Muslim. But how incompatible are their views with Western values
in reality? It's especially important to ask this after acts of atrocity like the Nice
attack.

The core Western values of democracy, freedom and justice can be seen as the
bedrock of its civilisation – and for practising, informed Muslims, freedom and
democratic values are anything but new to them. Islam from its very outset
advocated for complete freedom, justice and democratic values.

Many are quick to point out that today, many Islamic nations seem to have fallen
back into the Dark Ages. But it was Islamic injunctions which first spurned the

3
Atif Rashid, The truth about whether Islamic values are compatible with Western values,
INDEPENDENT .
<https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-truth-about-whether-islamic-values-are-compatible-
with-western-values-a7141381.html>
great advancements made during the Islamic Golden Age from the 8th to the 13th
century. The reason many so-called Islamic countries have gone backwards
socially or politically is a direct consequence of failing to faithfully follow Islamic
injunctions. This is because they have allowed themselves to follow the ideology
of hardline clerics, rather than truly Islamic teachings.

From the outset, Islam has always advocated for a democratic form of governance,
leaving it to the people to decide how and by whom they should be led. So any
Muslim demanding that sharia law should be imposed in this country is not only
entirely ignorant of Islam but insolent towards the freedom and opportunities
Western countries offer. Ironically, of course, they are able to spout their false
ideology because of those very freedoms.

To illustrate Islam’s support for a democratic government, verse 4:59 of the Holy
Qur’an clearly outlines the basic and main requirements for democracy. The
people must take their vote as a responsibility and thus choose the most appropriate
and suitable person to lead them. The Qu’ran then in turn exhorts those in authority
to exercise justice.
Further, it promotes dialogue and consultation to gauge public opinion and decide
matters fairly as illustrated in 42:39. Muslims in the early era of Islam had this
sense of responsibility.
So when Islam itself supports a democratic form of governance and also requires
Muslims to “obey those in authority among them” (4:60), any Muslim speaking
against the West while living with its freedoms is acting deliberately against the
recommendations of their religion. Those who really feel Islam isn’t compatible
with Western values ought to educate themselves on Islam’s true teachings, even if
some so-called Muslims won’t.
If we take justice to be one of the Western values to be proud of, those unaware of
Islamic teachings would be surprised to hear how the Qur’an strongly exhorts to
absolute justice on more than one occasion (5:9, 6:153, 7:30), saying, “Allah loves
the just” (49:10). The Qu’ran is so clear on the importance of fair-mindedness that
Harvard University declared this verse as one of the greatest expressions of justice
in literature.

But what about freedom? Here we find similar values. Those asserting that Islam
restricts freedom are grossly mistaken, or simply deceived by the oppressive
political regimes in the Middle East. It’s important not to confuse the religion of
Islam with oppressive political and dictatorial rule.

How, when the Prophet of Islam said it was forbidden to compel anyone in matters
of faith, can his followers then have the authority to impose their beliefs on others?
Time and again Islam’s teachings uphold religious and personal freedoms. If
dictators in the Middle East or radical Muslim preachers oppose the Prophet
Mohammed in their words and actions, then they’re solely to blame. It doesn’t
mean Islam is incompatible with freedom or human rights. It means that these hate
preachers and unjust rulers who claim to be Muslims are at odds with not only
Western values, but the true requirements of their faith.

The Prophet Mohammed declared all men were free – no one being superior to
another except by way of righteous conduct. He further took great steps to abolish
slavery and liberate women across the Arab world whose status as chattel was
widespread. This was long before similar battles were won in the West against
unjust slavery and for the liberation of women.

In other words, Islam isn’t just compatible with Western values; it started to
espouse and establish them long before western democracies. Islamic and Western
values are one and the same, and they have been for longer than you could possibly
imagine.