Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

This is a Digital Library

With over 100,000 free electronic resource in Persian, Arabic and English

Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims [Electronic resources] - نسخه متنی

Sayed Ali Asghar Rizwy

| نمايش فراداده ، افزودن یک نقد و بررسی
افزودن به کتابخانه شخصی
ارسال به دوستان
جستجو در متن کتاب
بیشتر
تنظیمات قلم

فونت

اندازه قلم

+ - پیش فرض

حالت نمایش

روز نیمروز شب
جستجو در لغت نامه
بیشتر
لیست موضوعات
توضیحات
افزودن یادداشت جدید



Democracy and the Muslims


MOST MODERN MUSLIMS BELIEVE AND CLAIM THAT
GOVERNMENT IN ISLAM is democratic in character. A government run by the Muslims may be
democratic in character but an Islamic government is not.

Till the end of World War I, Muslims lived
everywhere under the rule of kings and sultans. They called their kings and sultans
Zillullah (the Shadow of God), and they were very happy to live in that "shadow"
(as if God has a shadow), even though, with rare exceptions, those kings and sultans were
the most despotic, autocratic and authoritarian of rulers. They exercised absolute power
over their subjects, and could kill anyone who displeased them.

After the World War I, the power of the kings and
sultans began to wane. In the changing perceptions of the twentieth century, the kings and
sultans became "anachronistic," and the Muslims made the discovery that
democracy was Islamic. They began to sing the praises of democracy, and most of them
became "converts" to it. Their "conversion" to democracy means that
during the first fourteen centuries of its history, Islam was "undemocratic,"
and it is only sometime after 1919 since when it has become "democratic."

Those Muslims who claim that democracy is Islamic,
say that after the death of the Apostle of God, his companions set up the al-Khilafat
er-Rashida (the Rightly-Guided Caliphate), and it was the best example of democratic
government.

Al-Khilafat er-Rashida lasted only thirty years.
After those thirty years, the Islamic democracy was supplanted by absolute monarchy. That
system of government called "Islamic democracy" ceased to exist. Islamic
democracy proved to be a highly perishable commodity. It lasted, in fact, less than thirty
years – not even a generation!

The Islamic democracy died unclaimed, unmourned and
unsung. Who killed it? The pagans? The idolaters? The polytheists? The Magians? The Jews?
The Christians? No. The Muslims themselves killed it. And who were the Muslims who killed
Islamic democracy? They were not the Muslims of later centuries. They all belonged to the
generation of Muhammad Mustafa himself, and all of them were his "companions."

If the program of Islam comprehends the
establishment of democracy as the ideal form of government for the Muslims, then what is
the position of those saboteurs who destroyed it in its infancy? Islamic democracy was
created by the companions of the Prophet but those men who destroyed it, were also his
companions. While one group of companions, headed by Abu Bakr and Umar, had founded the
institution of Islamic democracy (as claimed by the Sunni Muslims), another group of
companions, headed by Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan and Amr bin Aas, had demolished it. A third
group of companions, headed by Abdullah bin Umar bin al-Khattab and Abu Hurayra, had
witnessed the struggle between Islamic democracy and its grave-diggers. They had been the
silent spectators of the death throes of Islamic democracy. When no doubt was left that
Muawiya was the "winner," they, being realists and pragmatists, declared that
they were with him – with Muawiya – the destroyer of Islamic democracy!

Faris Glubb

Islamic government was completely undermined in the
greater part of the Muslim world by the seizure of power by Mu'awiya in 40 A.H. Mu'awiya
destroyed the Kingdom of God established by the Prophet and replaced it with a worldly
kingdom. He substituted a just and democratic caliphate with a tyrannical hereditary
monarchy... (Article captioned "The Islamic Ideal of Ethical Government,"
published in the Muslim News International, London, March 1963)

Abu Bakr, Umar, Muawiya, Amr bin Aas, Abdullah bin
Umar bin al-Khattab, and Abu Hurayra, all were companions of the Prophet of Islam. Abu
Bakr and Umar established Islamic democracy; and Muawiya and Amr bin Aas destroyed it.
Does it mean that the builders and the destroyers – both groups – are right, and
democracy and absolutist monarchy both are "Islamic?"

We can suspend judgment, at the moment, on
"Islamic" democracy but the present-day Sunni jurists and scholars are not
willing to extend that courtesy to monarchy as also being "Islamic." According
to them, there is no such thing as Islamic monarchy. They are unanimous in billing
monarchy as "unIslamic."

G. H. Jansen

The political nature of the Islamic state or order
is naturally of primary interest. When engaged in the practical task of drawing up a new
constitution for Pakistan that ‘would be in consonance with the teachings and history
of Islam,' (President) Ayub Khan asked his experts to study Islamic history and the
constitutions of other Muslim countries. Two things emerged clearly from this study: There
was no place for Kingship in Islam, and succession could not be on a hereditary basis. The
community as a whole must have the right to choose its leader and the right to remove him.
(This means that all Muslim monarchies, whatever their pretensions to religiosity, have
been totally unIslamic). On these two fundamentals there is indeed agreement among our
political reformers, but on every other aspect of Islamic policy there are differences of
substance and of emphasis. (Militant Islam, New York)

The Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood) of
Egypt, has indicted all military regimes (dictatorships) also as unIslamic.

G. H. Jansen

The Muslim Brotherhood stressed that no government
established by force can be accepted, for consultation is mandatory according to Sura 42
verse 35 of the Koran. Hence military regimes produced by coups are unIslamic. (Militant
Islam, New York)

It is, therefore, the consensus of the Sunni
scholars of Pakistan and the Sunni spokesmen of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, that
monarchy and military regimes both are unIslamic.

But it is a latter-day consensus. The Sunni jurists
and scholars of the classical times would not have endorsed this view. Their consensus was
entirely different from this. They upheld the supremacy of brute force, as noted before.

And isn't the term "unIslamic" a euphemism
for "pagan"? If it is, and if according to the Sunni jurists of Pakistan,
monarchy is a pagan institution, then what is their verdict on the monarchs themselves.
Can the monarchs run an unIslamic establishment, and still be true Muslims? And what is
their verdict on the man who first seized the Right-Guided Caliphate in a coup, and then
converted it into monarchy, viz., Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan? He often boasted that he was the
first of the kings of the Arabs.

The views of the Sunni jurists of Pakistan and the
views of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt on the character of monarchy and military
regimes, are shared by Muhammad Asad, a modern, European, Sunni scholar. He writes in his
book, State and Government in Islam (1980):

"...let us be clear in our minds on one point
at least: there has never existed a truly Islamic state after the time of the Prophet and
of the Medina Caliphate headed by the Prophet's immediate successors, the four
Right-Guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali."

According to the foregoing judgment, the Islamic
State ceased to be Islamic as soon as Muawiya seized it.

But Muawiya went beyond changing the Right-Guided
Caliphate into an unIslamic, i.e., pagan monarchy. He passed on monarchy as his
"legacy" to the Muslim umma. The Muslim umma, therefore, has been ruled for all
these centuries, by kings, and is saddled with them even today in the 1990s - in countries
like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco.

And yet, the same Muawiya is, for the Sunni Muslims,
a "companion and a scribe" of the Prophet, and oh yes, "may God be pleased
with him" (for changing Islamic caliphate into a pagan monarchy).

It is perhaps an interesting exercise to ponder if
Sunni scholars can see the fallacies in their own logic, and the glaring contradictions in
their own consensus. If they can, then it would be interesting to see how they rationalize
them.

Many Muslims look back longingly toward the
thirty-year reign of the al-Khulafa-er-Rashidoon (the rightly-guided caliphs) as the
"golden age" of Islam. Actually, it was not so golden as it appears to them, or,
at best, it was golden for those Muslims who had amassed vast quantities of gold for
themselves during those "golden" years.

There were only four of these
"rightly-guided" caliphs. Three out of them met violent deaths, two in the midst
of civil war. One of them, i.e., Abu Bakr, who was not killed, and who died a natural
death, was khalifa for only two years.

G. H. Jansen

Yet another source for legal precedent are the
traditions of the Khalifah-al-Rashidun, the ‘rightly-guided caliphs,' the first four
rulers to succeed Muhammad. They were Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman and Ali, and their four reigns
lasted from 632 to 661 A.D. This brief space of twenty-nine years is viewed, nostalgically
through the obscuring mists of time, as the ‘golden age' of Islam. Why it should be
so considered is debatable, for its brevity was because, of the four caliphs, two were
assassinated and one was cut down by his enemies, in his home, when reading the Koran. All
the divisions that have plagued Islam and the Arab world ever since then, were born during
that ‘golden' age. It was certainly a glorious age, the period when the Muslim Arabs
conquered the whole vast area extending from Tripolitania in the west to the frontiers of
India in the east. So the ‘traditions' of what these four glorious but ill-fated
rulers said and did were added to the growing corpus of Islamic law. (Militant Islam, New
York)

Two modern Pakistani historians, Professor Sayed
Abdul Qadir and Professor Muhammad Shuja-ud-Deen, have quoted Abul Kalam Azad in their
History of Islam (Lahore, Pakistan) in the chapter captioned "The Meaning of
Khilafat" as follows:

"There should be a government for the guidance,
welfare and happiness of mankind which would give the world deliverance from cruelty,
tyranny, oppression and exploitation; and which would restore peace and security to all so
that it may become possible to promulgate the Law of God upon this earth, thereby
transforming it into heaven."

There was such a government – the one founded
by Muhammad, the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family), in Medina –
which was transforming this earth into heaven by promulgating the Law of God upon it. But
its career was interrupted by his death. After his death, new people took charge of his
government. But their aims, policy and program were not the same as his, and they,
therefore, changed the character of his government.

Muhammad's government was the Kingdom of Heaven on
Earth, but after his death, it became an "Aristotelian" government.

/ 86