|
Military Dictatorship Has No Place in Islam
By:
Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(1983)
What Islam teaches us
about Military Dictatorships
In Islam even the rule of God's
religion cannot be imposed by force. In a well-known verse of
Surah al-Baqarah it is said:
"Let there be no compulsion in
religion (la ikraha fi ad-din)." (2:256)
As a result of this principle, if there
are non-Muslims in an Islamic society
they cannot be forced to become Muslims or
follow Islamic law. Only people who freely accept Islam are
bound by its blessed and noble teachings. Now, therefore, if God's
rule cannot be forcefully imposed on people by anyone, how can a
Muslim dictator have the right to impose his rule by military
might?
In the exemplary period of the four
rightly guided caliphs it was simply unthinkable that any
individual, however good or great, would take over power by the use
of military force. The four caliphs themselves
were elected heads of state who enjoyed widespread support and
respect. Hadrat Abu Bakr was elected in a free and open
public gathering while Hadrat Omar, `Uthman and Ali were elected by
councils of trusted elders of the community. When the rightly guided
caliph Amir Mu`awiyah nominated his son as the ruler, the Prophet's
own grandson, Hadrat Imam Hussain, protested and as we all know gave
his life rather than accept the rule of a man who, among other
faults, did not come to power through proper means, i.e. through the
election and support of the people.
This practice of the prophet's leading
companions was in fact based on explicit guidance of the Holy Qur'an
which requires that affairs of the Muslim community be run by public
participation. In a chapter entitled Shura
(consultation), the Holy Qur'an says of the Muslims that:
"...their affairs are run by mutual
consultation." (42:38)
Even the Prophet Muhammad himself, who
came in this world with an authority from God, is commanded in the
Qur'an:
"...to take counsel with them (i.e.
the people) in matters (of public concern)." (3:159)
It is clear from the above that in
Islam, power primarily belongs to God and the people. even the
Prophet's authority was derived from these two primary sources of
power. When he spoke or acted as a messenger
of God his authority was derived from God and when he spoke or acted
as the head of the community his authority was derived from the
people, by whose "counsel" he was bound. Since after the
Prophet Muhammad died there is to be no other messenger or prophet
of God, no one else will ever be able to speak or act with the
authority of God and, therefore, from now on all Muslim rulers are
as rulers (though not as individuals) completely bound by the
counsel and will of the people.
In conducting shura in a
society, effort should be made to involve as many members of the
society as means of communication allow at a given time. Also,
shura should be used in reaching decisions in as many
matters as possible.
The first matter to be decided by
shura in an Islamic society is, of course, the question of
who will govern the society. A government that
comes to power without due shura has no legitimacy in
Islam, even though it conducts some shura in
other matters. Consequently, the practice of Muslim dictators who
first seize power by military force and then institute a "majlis-e-shura"
or a controlled form of basic democracies through which only
opinions favorable to the ruler are allowed to exist has absolutely
no validity in Islam.
The views expressed above are not just
the views of this insignificant writer. They are also the views of a
majority of reputed Islamic scholars of all ages and places. Manlana
A.A. Mawdudi Audemars Piguet Replica Watches (whose followers once unfortunately allied with a
Pakistani military leader Zia's dictatorial rule) speaks for all
these scholars when he writes:
"Every person in an
Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of a khalifa
of God and in this respect all people are equal. No one takes
precedence over another or can deprive him of his rights and
powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be
formed in accordance with the will of the people and the
authority of the state will only be an accretion of the powers
of the people delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in
the formation of the government which will be run with their
counsel and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their
confidence will undertake the duty and obligation of the
caliphate on their behalf: and when he loses this confidence he
will have to quit and bow before their will. In this regard the
political system of Islam is a perfect form of democracy - as
perfect as a democracy can ever be." (Islamic Way of Life, p.44)
Of course, an Islamic society differs
from a Western democracy in the important respect that while in the
latter people make their own laws and constitutions, in the former,
laws and constitution are based on divine guidance. But this in no
way means that the will and wishes of the people count any less in
an Islamic society than in a Western democracy, since if the Islamic
society is formed on the Qur'anic principle: "there is no
compulsion in religion" (2:256), then it is only by the free
choice and wishes of the people that the society will derive its
laws and constitution from the guidance of God as given through His
blessed messenger.
Why some Muslims are not
enthusiastic about democracy
Democracy is as
much a requirement of Islamic teachings as prayer, zakat,
abstinence from alcohol, usury, fornication, etc.
Yet while every Muslim will agree that Islam enjoins prayer and
zakat (welfare tax) and forbids alcohol, usury, fornication,
etc., a great many Muslims would not say with the same categoricity
that Islam requires a democratic system of government for a Muslim
society. There are two reasons for this phenomenon.
First, democracy is a term most often
used in the non-Muslim secularist West. For this reason, many
Muslims have the impression that the idea of democracy is a
peculiarly Western idea which is alien to Islam. But if, as we have
shown above, Islam requires that the government of a Muslim country
should have the confidence of the people and that its affairs should
be run by public participation, then the idea of democracy is not at
all alien to Islam but it is part and parcel. It is one of those
ideas that happen to be present in both the Western tradition and
Islam. If we do not like the term democracy, we can use some other
term (such as shuriyyah or ummatism) but
we cannot reject the democratic principle itself. Such a rejection
would be tantamount to a rejection of an aspect of Islamic
teachings.
Second, democracy is a very difficult
system to preserve. Muslims could not preserve it beyond the time of
the four rightly guided caliphs, after which the political power
passed into the hands of autocratic rulers, sultans and kings. It
then became dangerous to refer to the democratic principles of the
Qur'an and to their practice by the leading companions of the
Prophet. Ulama (Muslim scholars), therefore, spent
more and more time talking about personal aspects of the Islamic
religion ? prayer, zakat, fasting, hajj, inheritance, etc.,
and avoided mentioning socio-political principles of Islam. As
centuries passed under these conditions, people got used to having
sultans, kings and dictators, so much so that now many of them are
not even sure that dictatorship is totally un-Islamic.
Lesson from history
It is not only Islam that teaches us to
adopt a democratic approach in running our affairs. History also
teaches us the same lesson.
If we glance through past and recent
history, it will become quickly obvious that more democratic
nations, in which rights of the individual are better respected,
prosper in the long run and become victorious over less democratic
nations. Thus in the early days of Islam, Muslims respected the
individual rights and enjoyed popular elected governments. As a
result, they prospered and were victorious over autocratic Persian
and Byzantine empires. In the colonial times, Western democracies
prevailed over most of the Asian and African countries that were all
ruled despots. More recently, democratic Britain and the U.S.A. won
against Nazi Germany ruled by one man. India, with a stable
democratic system, has defeated and dismembered Pakistan which has
mostly been ruled by military dictators. Democratic Britain defeated
military-ruled Argentina in the Falklands, despite the fact that
Britain was many times further away from the battlefield than
Argentina. Revolutionary Iran, governed by a popular leadership and
an elected majlis, won extraordinary victories over
Iraq's despotic ruler, Saddam Hussain. And, of course, democratic
Israel has been inflicting for the past many decades humiliating
defeats on the richer and more populous Arab countries ruled by
dictators and kings. One could continue the list, but the examples
cited should be enough to teach us that if Muslim societies are to
become strong, independent and prosperous societies, then their
people will have to dispose of the ruling dictators and kings and
take control of their affairs in their own hands. If they do not do
so, then further disintegration of the Ummah and more and
more humiliation and defeats from our enemies are inevitable. God
has placed the future of the Muslim Ummah in the hands of its
peoples. |