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

Date of Submission: 28-03-2010

 Page 2 of 9

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
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.
 Page 3 of 9

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
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.
 Page 4 of 9

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:

Thus, universal acceptance of man as Allah’s trustee in this context matches with the
very soul of democracy (Tamimi: 78).
 Page 5 of 9

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 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
 Page 6 of 9

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
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.
 Page 7 of 9

(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.

(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
 Page 8 of 9

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)

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
 Page 9 of 9

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.