OpiniOn

Islam, Democracy, Sharia & Caliphate

Compatible or Conflictive?
Columnist Brig (Retd) AFTAB AHMAD KHAN

Introduction

Justice, tolerance, equity and

moderation is the hallmark of Islam
which accords great value to all
human life, Muslims and nonMuslims alike. The Islamic political
system emphasises consultation
(shura) which is the democratic way.
Democracy has taken a number of
forms, both in theory and practice.
Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more
freedom for their citizens than others. Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and
practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation
and more freedom for their citizens
than others. The so called corrupt
and incompetent democratic governments in Muslim lands have
shaken the confidence of people of
in democracy. Hence disillusioned
people blame democracy for all ills,
some demanding military dictatorship or caliphate [Khilafa] while others talk of Sharia to resolve injustice, corruption and other ills plaguing society. exploiting the religious
sentiments of the simple people, the
proponents of caliphate declare
democracy as un-Islamic or Haram
[forbidden] and Kufr [disbelief] and
the establishment of one global
caliphate is their final objective.
Verses from Quran and Hadith are
quoted to advance their arguments.

There are many reputed Islamic

scholars who consider democracy
to be within bounds of Sharia as a
good system for Muslims. They also
think that instead of copying a particular Western democratic system,
each Muslim society should adopt a
reformed democratic system suitable to its people, faith, culture and
environments. The diverse views
demand an objective analysis.
Muslims may be weak in practice, but are deeply committed to
their faith, a phenomena not
restricted to the Indo-Pak subcontinent but applicable universally. a
new Pew research centre survey
of Muslims around the globe finds
that most adherents of the worlds
second-largest religion are deeply
committed to their faith and want
its teachings to shape not only
their personal lives but also their
societies and politics. In all but a
handful of the 39 countries surveyed, a majority of Muslims say
that Islam is the one true faith
leading to eternal life in heaven
and that belief in God is necessary to be a moral person. Many
also think that their religious leaders should have at least some
influence over political matters.
and many express a desire for
Sharia traditional Islamic law
to be recognized as the official
law of their country.

The percentage of Muslims who

say they want Sharia to be the official law of the land varies widely
around the world, from fewer than
one-in-ten in azerbaijan (8%) to
near unanimity in afghanistan
(99%). But solid majorities in most
of the countries surveyed across the
Middle east and north africa, subSaharan africa, South asia and
Southeast asia favour the establishment of Sharia, including 71% of
Muslims in nigeria, 72% in
Indonesia, 74% in egypt and 89% in
the Palestinian territories.
At the same time, the survey
finds that even in many countries
where there is strong backing for
Sharia, most Muslims favour religious freedom for people of other
faiths. In Pakistan, for example,
three-quarters of Muslims say that
non-Muslims are very free to practice their religion, and fully 96% of
those who share this assessment
say it is a good thing. Yet 84% of
Pakistani Muslims favour enshrining Sharia as official law. These
seemingly divergent views are
possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan as
in many other countries think
Islamic law should apply only to
Muslims. Moreover, Muslims
around the globe have differing
understandings of what sharia
means in practice.

Defence Journal
25
25

OpiniOn
The survey which involved
more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages with
Muslims across europe, asia, the
Middle east and africa shows that
Muslims tend to be most comfortable with using sharia in the domestic sphere, to settle family or property disputes. In most countries surveyed, there is considerably less
support for severe punishments,
such as cutting off the hands of
thieves or executing people who
convert from Islam to another faith.
and even in the domestic sphere,
Muslims differ widely on such questions as whether polygamy, divorce
and family planning are morally
acceptable and whether daughters
should be able to receive the same
inheritance as sons.
In most countries surveyed,
majorities of Muslim women as well
as men agree that a wife is always
obliged to obey her husband.
Indeed, more than nine-in-ten
Muslims in Iraq (92%), Morocco
(92%), Tunisia (93%), Indonesia
(93%), afghanistan (94%) and
Malaysia (96%) express this view.
at the same time, majorities in many
countries surveyed say a woman
should be able to decide for herself
whether to wear a veil.
overall, the survey finds that
most Muslims see no inherent tension between being religiously
devout and living in a modern society. nor do they see any conflict
between religion and science. Many
favour democracy over authoritarian
rule, believe that humans and other
living things have evolved over time
and say they personally enjoy
Western movies, music and television even though most think
Western popular culture undermines public morality.
according to the Pew research
centers 2012 report The Worlds
Muslims: unity and Diversity focuses on Muslims social and political

attitudes, and it incorporates findings from both waves of the survey.

relatively few Muslims say that
tensions between more religiously
observant and less observant
Muslims are a very big problem in
their country. In most countries
where the question was asked,
Muslims also see little tension
between members of Islams two
major sects, Sunnis and Shias
though a third or more of Muslims in
Pakistan (34%) and lebanon (38%)
consider Sunni-Shia conflict to be a
very big problem.
Support for making Sharia the
official law of the land tends to be
higher in countries like Pakistan
(84%) and Morocco (83%) where
the constitution or basic laws
favour Islam over other religions.
In many countries, Muslims who
pray several times a day are more
likely to support making sharia official law than are Muslims who pray
less frequently. In russia, lebanon,
the Palestinian territories and
Tunisia, for example, Muslims who
pray several times a day are at least
25 percentage points more supportive of enshrining sharia than are
less observant Muslims. Generally,
however, there is little difference in
support for sharia by age, gender or
education.
according to another survey
conducted by the British High
commission in Pakistan, published
in april 2013, more than half of
young Pakistanis believe democracy has not been good for their country and nearly 40 percent are in
favour of having Islamic Sharia
rule. Just 29 percent chose democracy as the best system for
Pakistan, a constitutional Islamic
republic, with 38 percent favouring
Sharia, saying it was the best for
giving rights and freedom and promoting tolerance. When asked to
pick the best political system, both
Sharia and military rule were

favoured over democracy. It is evident that the biggest issue facing

Pakistan today is the lack of a social
consensus over the direction people
want the country to go in. Should
Pakistan, as a society and state, be
organized as a military dictatorship,
a theocracy or should it head toward
a stronger democratic culture that
respects the place of Islam in society? The absence of this consensus
is tearing society apart. Hence there
is a need to understand the difference between Sham, Pseudo
democracy, Western democracy
and true Islamic Democracy:

Democracy

according
to
Wikipedia;
Democracy is a form of government
in which all eligible citizens have an
equal say in the decisions that affect
their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally
either directly or through elected
representativesin the proposal,
development, and creation of laws.
It encompasses social, economic
and cultural conditions that enable
the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
The term originates from the
Greek (dmokrata)
rule of the people, which was
coined from (dmos)
people and (kratos)
power or rule in the 5th century
Bce to denote the political systems
then existing in Greek city-states,
notably athens; the term is an
antonym
to
(aristocratie) rule of
an elite. While theoretically these
definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred
historically. The political system of
classical athens, for example,
granted democratic citizenship to an
elite class of free men and excluded
slaves and women from political
participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout

Defence Journal
26
26

OpiniOn
ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an
elite class until full enfranchisement
was won for all adult citizens in most
modern democracies through the
suffrage movements of the 19th and
20th centuries. The english word
dates to the 16th century, from the
older Middle french and Middle
latin equivalents.
a democratic government contrasts to forms of government where
power is either held by one, as in a
monarchy, or where power is held
by a small number of individuals, as
in an oligarchy. nevertheless, these
oppositions, inherited from Greek
philosophy, are now ambiguous
because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements.
Karl Popper defines democracy in
contrast to dictatorship or tyranny,
thus focusing on opportunities for
the people to control their leaders
and to oust them without the need
for a revolution.
Several variants of democracy
exist, but there are two basic forms,
both of which concern how the
whole body of all eligible citizens
executes its will. one form of
democracy is direct democracy, in
which all eligible citizens have direct
and active participation in the decision making of the government. In
most modern democracies, the
whole body of all eligible citizens
remain the sovereign power but
political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives;
this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative
democracy arose largely from ideas
and institutions that developed during the european Middle ages, the
age of enlightenment, and the
american and french revolutions.
Most of modern societies and
cultures have adopted various
forms of democracies according to
their needs. even in europe there is

not a single type of Democratic system. england has Westminster type

of parliamentary democracy, while
france, Germany have their own
type. Some countries follow direct
electorate system while others have
adopted the proportionate representation system. The uSa is following
its own type of presidential system
and electoral procedure. russia,
china & cars also claim to be
democracies. understanding of
some basic terminologies will facilitate to comprehend the concept of
Islamic Democracy.

The Law &

Islamic Society

Islam provides a legal code to

govern the life of Muslims and society, known as Sharia. The peaceful
coexistence is the basic requirement
of any community for its survival,
development and expansion. law,
may be defined as the discipline concerned with the customs, practices,
and rules of conduct of a community
that are recognized as binding by the
community. The enforcement of the
body of rules is through a controlling
authority. Total and unqualified submission to the will of allah is the fundamental tenet of Islam: Islamic law
is therefore the expression of allahs
command for Muslim society and, in
application, constitutes a system of
duties that are incumbent upon a
Muslim by virtue of his religious
belief. Known as the Sharia (the
path leading to the watering place),
the Islamic law constitutes a divinely
ordained path of conduct, that
guides the Muslim toward a practical
expression of his religious conviction
(rituals) and all aspects of life
(social, economic, political etc) in
this world and the goal of divine
favour in the world to come.

Roman Law

The Western civilization has

been following roman law and its

derivatives. romans considered ritual law (fas) to be God-given and

social law (lex) as man-made.
Hence it dealt with matters of succession (who was to inherit what),
obligations (including contracts,
such as loans, entered into by individuals), property and possessions,
and persons (which included family,
slaves, and citizenship). The
roman law, as a legal system and
as basis for the law codes has
affected the development of law in
most of Western civilization as well
as in parts of the east. It was the
law of ancient rome from the time
of the founding of the city of rome
in 753 Bc until the fall of the
Western empire. However it
remained in use in the eastern, or
Byzantine, empire until 1453 c.e.

The Biblilc Law

The old Testament include the

law given by God through Moses,
commonly referred as Mosaic law,
which was also confirmed by Jesus
by saying: Think not that I have
come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish
them but to fulfil them. for truly, I
say to you, till heaven and earth
pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
will pass from the law until all is
accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so,
shall be called least in the kingdom
of heaven; but he who does them
and teaches them shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven. for
I tell you, unless your righteousness
exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you will never enter the
kingdom of heaven. (Mathew;5:1720 also the Beatitudes, Matthew;
5:3-12 and the lords Prayer
Matthew; 6:9-13). However Paul
changed by saying; BuT noW We
are DIScHarGeD froM THe
laW, DeaD to that which held us
captive, so that we serve not under

Defence Journal
27
27

OpiniOn
the old written code but in the new
life of the Spirit.(romans;7:6). The
new Testament lays down the general principles of good government,
but contains no code of laws for the
punishment of offenders: for this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not
steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if
there be any other commandment, it
is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour
as
thyself.(romans;13:9).
Punishment proceeds on the principle that there is an eternal distinction between right and wrong, and
that this distinction must be maintained for its own sake. It is not primarily intended for the reformation
of criminals, nor for the purpose of
deterring others from sin. These
results may be gained, but crime in
itself demands punishment.

The Jewish law

(Talmudic Law and
Jurisprudence)

It is considered to be of divine
origin. Thus, for example, unfairness in labour relations was considered a religious sin and caring for
the sick a religious obligation.
Though familiar with the concept of
natural law (ethical principles inherent in the nature of things and
apprehensible through human reason), the rabbis objected to making
nature the basis of law. even rabbinic ordinances were regarded as
having validity only because the
authority of the rabbis is sanctioned
by the Torah. This however
remained the personal law for Jews
for centuries, being a minority in
various countries. With the rebirth
of a Jewish national state (1948)
and the connected revival of
Jewish culture, the Talmud has
achieved renewed importance.
orthodox Jewry has always

focused upon its study and has

believed it to be the absolute
Halakhic (practice, rules of conduct) authority. This belief has
now become even further intensified. While rabbinic courts in Israel
have jurisdiction only in the area of
family life, it has become one of the
aims of religious (orthodox) Jewry
there to establish Talmudic law as
the general law of the state.

Canon Law

In christianity, the churches followed canon law which in its wider

sense includes precepts of divine
law, natural or positive, incorporated
in various canonical collections or
codes; may be defined as that body
of rules and regulations (canons)
concerning the behaviour and
actions of individuals and institutions within certain christian churches, which have, through proper
priestly authority, defined and codified such rules. canon law has had
a long history of development
throughout the christian era. not a
static body of laws, it reflects social,
political, economic, cultural, and
ecclesiastical changes that have
taken place in the past two millennia. During periods of social and
cultural upheaval the church has not
remained unaffected by its environment. Thus, canon law may be
expected to be involved in the farreaching changes that have come
to be anticipated in the modern
world. The Western civilization separated the religion form state, by
declaring the religion to be personal
matter of individual and initially
depended on roman law, later on
civil law, also called roMano
GerManIc laW, the law of continental europe, based on an admixture of roman, Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal, commercial, and
customary law. european civil law
has been adopted in much of latin
america as well as in parts of asia

and africa and is to be distinguished

from the common law of the angloamerican countries. The common
law is the system of laws originated
and developed in england and
based on court decisions, on the
doctrines implicit in those decisions,
and on customs and usages rather
than on codified written laws.

Church and State

The relationship between religious and secular authority in society is generally termed as church
and State. In most ancient civilizations the separation of religious and
political orders was not clearly
defined. With the advent of
christianity, the idea of two separate
orders emerged, based on Jesus
command to render unto caesar
what are caesars, and to God the
things that are Gods (Mark 12:17)
and abrogation of law of Moses by
Paul for the christians. The close
association of religion and politics,
however, continued even after the
triumph of christianity as emperors
such as constantine exercised
authority over both church and
state. In the early Middle ages secular rulers claimed to rule by the
grace of God, and later in the Middle
ages popes and emperors competed for universal dominion. During
the Investiture controversy the
church clearly defined separate and
distinct religious and secular orders,
even though it laid the foundation
for the so-called papal monarchy.
The reformation greatly undermined papal authority, and the pendulum swung toward the state, with
many monarchs claiming to rule
church and state by divine right. The
concept of secular government, as
evinced in the u.S. and post revolutionary france, was influenced by
enlightenment thinkers. In Western
europe today all states protect freedom of worship and maintain a distinction between civil and religious

Defence Journal
28
28

OpiniOn
authority. The legal systems of
some modern Islamic countries are
based on Sharah. In the u.S. the
separation of church and state has
been tested in the arena of public
education by controversies over
issues such as school prayer, public
funding of parochial schools, and
the teaching of creationism. In
Islamic system the total separation
of religion from state is not possible,
however it does not imply theocracy,
as there is no concept of Pope in
Islam. The ruler who should be well
versed with religious knowledge,
take advice from scholars and
jurists on various matters.

Islamic Law - Sharia

Since Islam is a complete code

of life covering all aspects including
social, economic, political, military
and other aspects of human life,
hence the Islamic law (Sharia)
spells out the moral goals of the
community, where state and religion
are not separate entity. In Islamic
society, therefore, the term law has
a wider significance than it does in
the modern secular West, because
Islamic law includes both legal and
moral imperatives. for the same
reason, not all-Islamic laws can be
stated as formal legal rules or
enforced by the courts. Much of it
depends on conscience alone. The
Sharia duties are broadly divided
into those that an individual owes to
allah (the ritual practices or ibadat)
and those that he owes to his fellow
men (muamalat). It is the latter category of duties alone, constituting
law in the Western sense, that is
penal law. The other laws include
offences against the person, homicide, law of transactions, family law,
succession law, procedure and evidence etc. The Quranic revelations
laid down basic standards of conduct for the first Muslim community
established under the leadership of
the Prophet (peace be upon him) at

Medina in 622 c.e. The Quran is

the book of guidance for the believers, it also lay down the parameters
of legal code. The Quran contains
about ninety verses directly and
specifically addressing questions of
law. Islamic legal discourse refers to
these verses as allahs law and
incorporates them into legal codes.
The remainder of Islamic law is the
result of jurisprudence (fiqh), human
efforts to codify Islamic norms in
practical terms and legislate for
cases not specifically dealt with in
the Quran and Sunnah. although
human generated legislation is considered fallible and open to revision,
the term Sharia is sometimes
applied to all Islamic legislation.
Modern scholars have however
challenged this claim, distinguishing
between Sharia and fiqh and calling
for reform of fiqh codes in light of
modern conditions.
The common topic of discussion
among modern scholars is that, the
government in the Muslim state
should primarily be concerned with
maintaining peace, equitable justice
based upon Islamic law and other
matters of statehood: those who
do not judge by the law which allah
has revealed, are indeed disbelievers. (Quran;5:44). However as far
as the religious matters are concerned they think that state has the
responsibility of making arrangements to establish Salah (regular
prayers) and system of Zakah
(obligatory charity), taking inference
form verse : but if they repent
and establish regular prayers and
practice regular charity then open
the way for them: for allah is oftforgiving
Most
Merciful.
(Quran;9:5), These are the people
who, if We establish them (in power,
authority) in the land, will establish
Salah and pay Zakah, enjoin justice
and forbid evil; the final decision of
all affairs is in the hands of allah.
(Quran;22:41), let there be no

compulsion
in
religion..
(Quran;2:256). They think that
implementation in all other matters,
should be left to the individuals
through persuasion to enjoin good
and forbid evil. use of force like
Taliban, forcing the men to keep
beard, women to cover face, not to
attend schools and colleges etc is
not considered
appropriate.
Similarly to the performing Hajj and
many other matters are left to the
individual Muslims for which they is
answerable to allah. The Bible also
emphasises similar aspects: for he
that will love life, and see good
days, let him refrain his tongue from
evil, and his lips that they speak no
guile: let him eschew evil, and do
good; let him seek peace, and
ensue it. for the eyes of the lord
are over the righteous, and his ears
are open unto their prayers: but the
face of the lord is against them that
do evil. and who is he that will harm
you, if ye be followers of that which
is good? (1 Peter; 3:10-13).

Differences of
Sharia from Western
Systems of Law

In classical form, the Sharia differs from Western systems of law

(based on roman law) in two principal respects. In the first place the
scope of the Sharia is much wider,
since it regulates mans relationship
not only with his neighbours and
with the state, which is the limit of
most other legal systems, but also
with his allah and his own conscience. ritual practices,(ibadat)
such as the daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage, are an
integral part of Sharia law and usually occupy the first chapters in the
legal manuals. The Sharia is also
concerned as much with ethical
standards as with legal rules, indicating not only what man is entitled
or bound to do in law, but also what
he (obligatory) ought, in con-

Defence Journal
29
29

OpiniOn
science, to do (halal), something
that is lawful and permitted in Islam,
or refrain from doing (haram) not
permissible. accordingly, certain
acts are classified as praiseworthy
(mandub), which means that their
performance brings divine favour
and their omission divine disfavour.
There is another category not halal
or haram but some thing doubtful,
classified as undesirable (makruh),
it is divided into Makruh Tahrimi
that which is nearly unlawful without it being actually so, and Makruh
Tanzihi that which approaches the
lawful or undesirable yet is closer to
the lawful. for example it is undesirable (makruh) for a person to buy
back what he has given in charity
(sadaqah, or zakat), or to wish for
ones death, or pray to allah for it,
due to poverty, distress, illness, or
the like. However in neither case is
there any legal sanction of punishment or reward, nullity or validity.
Thus the Sharia is not merely a
system of law, but a comprehensive
code of behaviour that embraces
both private and public activities.
The second major distinction
between the Sharia and Western
legal systems is the result of the
Islamic concept of law as the
expression of the divine will. Sharia
law though appears to be rigid in
certain aspects but there is room for
flexibility in fiqha through Ijtehad to
meet the challenges of growing and
changing needs of society. In
Islamic jurisprudence it is not the
society that moulds and fashions
the law, but the law that precedes
and controls society, however the
legitimate changes and requirements of the modern society are
kept in view with in bounds of Divine
Will. The Western law, is not based
on the Bible, they have discarded
the law of Moses, which Jesus
declared as his mission, when he
said: Think not that I have come to
abolish the law and the prophets; I

have come not to abolish them but

to fulfil them. . . . Whoever then
relaxes one of the least of these
commandments and teaches men
so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;(Mathew;5:17-20).
By contrast in the Western law, it is
the society that moulds and fashions the law thus consumption of
alcohol, homosexuality, gay marriages (not permitted in Bible) have
been made legal, on the desire and
public support of the Western
Society, where as in Sharia, it is not
possible to make such laws which
are unnatural and clearly against
the Divine Will, manifested in
Quran and Sunnah.

Ijtihad

It means independent reasoning as opposed to taqlid (imitation).

In the absence of direct guidance
from Quran or Sunnah for a given
situation, the exercise of rational
judgment by a competent authority
is termed as Ijtihad. It is a unique
and important component of
Sharia. Ijtihad started during the
life of the Prophet (peace be upon
him), who while sending Muadh ibn
Jabal to Yemen, asked him:
according to what will you judge?
according to the Book of God,
replied Muadh. and if you find nothing therein? according to the
Sunnah of the Prophet of God.
and if you find nothing therein?
Then I will exert myself (exercise
Ijtihad) to form my own judgment.
The Prophet was pleased with this
reply and said: Praise be to God
Who has guided the messenger of
the Prophet to that which pleases
the Prophet. The rules of Ijtihad
were framed by abu Bakr, the first
caliph. He laid down the principle
that in deciding a case he would
obtain guidance the first instance
from the Holy Quran. If the Holy
Quran was silent in the matter, he
would look for guidance to the tradi-

tions of the Holy Prophet as duly

authenticated. If the traditions were
also silent he was to decide the
case according to his best judgment
He held: If my decision is just then
it will be from God. If it is erroneous,
it will be mine, and may God pardon
me. Ijtihad is fallible since more
than one interpretation of a legal
issue is possible. It is possible that
some thing declared forbidden at
some time later declared permissible by other scholars i.e. use of
loudspeakers was declared haram
in India in early 20th century, but
now all mosques are well equipped
with it. Due to non availability of
clearly defined political system as
perceived at present, the concept of
Islamic political system with in the
Islamic Sharia parameters falls in
to domain of Ijtihad.

Islamic
Political System

Quran and Sunnah did not lay

down any specific political system,
which political system Muslims
should follow it has been left to the
people. However broad guidelines
and principles are laid down. This is
the reason that Prophet (pbuh) did
not nominate his successor, and
each one of four rightly guided
caliphs were elected, or chosen or
appointed in different manner.
according to my studies I agree with
those scholars who consider
Democracy with in the bounds of
Sharish as Islamic. not the secular
Western democracy, where majority
can make Haram [gay marriages]
as Halal. Since political system is
Ijtehadi matter both schools of
thought can be right as long as the
guiding principles of Quran and
Sunnah , justice are adhered to.
PurPoSe of SenDInG MeSSenGerS anD DIVIne BooKS:
We sent our messengers supported by clear proofs, and we sent
down to them the scripture and the

Defence Journal
30
30

OpiniOn
law, that the people may uphold
JuSTIce [Quran; 58:25)

Kings

Some scholars justify kingship

as Islamic, on the basis of verse:
Their Prophet said unto them: lo!
allah hath raised up Saul to be a
king for you. They said: How can he
have kingdom over us when we are
more deserving of the kingdom than
he is, since he hath not been given
wealth enough? He said: lo! allah
hath chosen him above you, and
hath increased him abundantly in
wisdom
and
stature.
allah
bestoweth His Sovereignty on
whom He will. allah is allembracing,
all-Knowing
(Quran;2:247)
In the Bible he [Talut] is called
Saul. He was a thirty-year-old
Benjaminite youth. There was not a
man among the people of Israel
more handsome than he; from his
shoulders upward he was taller than
any of the people (1 Samuel 9: 2).
He went out in search of the lost
asses of his father. During this
search, he passed through the
house of Samuel and God informed
Samuel that this was the person
who had been chosen to govern the
people of Israel. Samuel brought
Saul to his house, took a vial of oil,
poured it on his head,. kissed him
and said: Has not the lord anointed
you to be the prince over His people
of Israel? (1 Samuel 10: 1).
Samuel later called the people of
Israel together and proclaimed Saul
to be their king (1 Samuel 10: 17).
This appointment of King was on
demand of Israelites, the negative
aspects of Kingship were repeated
& reminded but Israelites wanted a
King. So Samuel told all the words
of the lord to the people who were
asking a king for him. He said,
These will be the ways of the king
who will reign over you; he will take
your sons and appoint them to his

chariots and to be his horsemen,

and to run before his chariots. and
he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to
plough his ground and to reap his
harvest, and to make the implements of war and the equipments of
his chariots. He will take your
daughters to be perfumers and
cooks and bakers. He will take the
best of your fields and vineyards
and olive orchards and give them to
his servants. He will take the tenth
of your grain and your vineyards
and give it to his officers and to his
servants. He will take you men-servants and maid-servants, and the
best of your cattle and asses, and
put them to his work. He will take
the tenth of your flocks, and you
shall be his slaves. and on that day
you will cry out because of your
king, whom you have chosen for
yourselves, but the lord will not
answer you in that day. But the people refused to listen to the voice of
Samuel, and they said. no! But we
will have a king over us, that we
also may be like all the nations, and
that our king may govern us and go
out before us and fight our battles.
and when Samuel had heard all the
words of the people, he repeated
them in the ears of the lord. and
the lord said to Samuel, Hearken
to their voice, and make them a
king. Samuel then said to the men
of Israel, Go every man to his city.
(1 Samuel 7: 15; 8: 4-22.). The
Biblical Kings like David, Solomon
(pbuh) were also prophets of God
according to Muslim beliefs. There
is no clear sanction or practice of
hereditary kings in the period of
four rightly guided caliphs.

Caliph

Traditionally the Islamic state

was be administered by a caliph
(arabic khalifah, successor), who
is elected through mutual consulta-

tion (bait), which may be called

democracy in modern terms. The
caliph hold temporal and sometimes a degree of spiritual authority,
the empire of the caliphate grew
rapidly through conquest during its
first two centuries to include most of
Southwest asia, north africa, and
Spain. The modern philosopher and
political theorist, rousseau (171278 c.e) admits, the practicability of
the Islamic polity and records in
Social contract, that; Muhammad
held very sane views, and linked his
political system well together; and
as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs,
who succeeded him, the government was indeed on and so far
good. after first four caliphs, the
caliphate
became
hereditary
against the original democratic spirit of this institution, however some
good aspects were retained. The
dynastic struggles later brought
about the caliphates decline, and it
ceased to exist with the Mongol
destruction of Baghdad in 1258 c.e.
later various Muslim rulers
emerged all over the known world
but they were hereditary, never
even close to the first four caliphs.
The last and biggest of its time, the
ottomans rule ended in 1922.
Presently most of the governments
in the predominantly Muslim countries are run by either hereditary
kings, dictators, or some forms of
democracies. one thing common to
all types of Muslim governments in
the history has been their inclination
towards Islam and revival of the
golden era of the first four caliphs,
known as The rightly Guided
caliphs. [For details read e-book by
writer: Caliphate: Redundant or
Relevant? Freely available at
http://aftabkhan.blog.com]

Modern Caliphate
Revivalists

There are many organizations

Defence Journal
31
31

OpiniOn
working for revival of system of
caliphate but they consider democratic method of election as unIslamic. They reject democracy as a
western system and un-Islamic
despite such aspects as elections
existing in the Islamic political system. It is argued that democracy as
a system is: The rule of people, for
the people, by the people. The basis
of the democratic system is that
people possess the right of sovereignty, choice and implementation.
... it is a Kufr system because it is
laid down by man and it is not from
the Sharia laws.
However, it is believed that the
caliph, i.e., the head of the
caliphate state, should be elected
and should be accountable to
those who have appointed him.
The position should not be inherited through blood lines, or imposed
on Muslims, but elected by them,
Muslims should then pledge their
loyalty to the caliph.
The caliph: is the head of state
in the Khilafah. He is not a king or
dictator but an elected leader whose
authority to rule must be given willingly by the Muslims through a special ruling contact called baya.
Without this baya he cannot be the
head of state. This is completely
opposite to a king or dictator who
imposes his authority through
coercion and force. It is argued
that the tyrant kings and dictators
in the Muslim world are examples
of this, imprisoning and torturing
their populations and stealing their
wealth and resources.
The caliphate supporters consider a system of elections for
Muslims to choose the caliph. a
Majlis al-umma for the caliph, is an
institution for consultation and
accountability of political rulers. The
Shura differs from Western representative democracy in that while
part of the ruling structure of the
Islamic caliphate, its not one of its

pillars. This is because they consider shura (consultation) in Islam

to be for seeking the opinion and not
for ruling. This is contrary to the parliamentary system in democracy.
More over when the Majlis makes a
decision after the caliph consults
them it is binding on the caliph to
accept the decision; the caliphs
powers outlined in one of the draft
proposed constitution refer only to
foreign affairs when in a state of war
that he considered existent during
his life. It may be noted that election of Caliph is similar to election of head of state or governments in most of Islamic democracies
where
sovereignty
belongs to Allah and rule is considered to be within Sharia.

Economy

The economic system should

allow private enterprise, but
reserves public ownership of utilities, public transport, health care,
energy resources such as oil, and
unused farm land (similar to communitarianism). However, it calls
for use of the Gold Standard, gold
and silver coinage:
... it is the duty of the Khilafah
State to make its currency in gold
and silver and to work on the
basis of gold and silver as it was
during the time of the Messenger
of allah and his Khulafaa after
him... to fix the weight of dinars
equal to the Shariah dinar or 4.25
grams (of Gold) for one dinar...
the dirham has the weight of
2.975 grams (of Silver). The basis
of gold and silver as currency is
the only way to solve currency
related economic problems and
the high inflation rates that are
common in the world, and to produce currency stability for rates
of exchange and progress in
international trade.... only by taking gold and silver as the standard, can the american control

and the control of the dollar as an

international currency, be demolished in international trade and
world economies.

Foreign Policy

With regards to foreign policy:

The State is forbidden to belong to
any organisation that is based on
something other than Islam or that
applies non-Islamic rules. This
includes organizations such as the
un, the World Bank, and the
International Monetary fund and
the arab league. It is permitted to
conclude good neighbouring, economic, commercial, financial, and
cultural and armistice treaties.

Caliphate &
Ayah Ishtikhlaf

The concept of Khilafat is has

been adopted as a maxim by some
organizations and groups in
Muslim countries to seek support
form the masses to gain power.
Some of them believe in peaceful
struggle while the extremist justify
use of violence and terrorism to
get in to power. It is claimed that
through establishment of Khilafat
they will be able to implement
Sharia, get rid of corrupt rulers,
provide quick justice, end oppression of Muslims and exploitation of
their resource by super powers.
Hence they will regain the lost
glory of Muslim ummah by uniting
them under a Khalifah.
Those advocating Khalifah or
caliph also refer to verses from
Quran and interpret accordingly:
He it is Who hath placed you as
viceroys of the earth and hath exalted some of you in rank above others, that He may try you by (the test
of) that which He hath given you.
lo! Thy lord is swift in prosecution,
and lo! He verily is forgiving,
Merciful. (Quran;6:165)
according to abu ala Moududi:
This statement embodies three

Defence Journal
32
32

OpiniOn
important truths: first, that human
beings as such are vicegerents of
God on earth, so that God has
entrusted them with many things
and endowed them with the power
to use them. Second, it is God
Himself Who has created differences of rank among His
vicegerents. The trust placed in
some is more than that of others.
Some men have been granted control of more resources than others.
Some are more gifted in respect of
their abilities. likewise, some
human beings have been placed
under the trust of others. Third, all
this is indeed designed to test man.
The entire life. of man is in fact, a
vast examination wherein man is
being tested about the trust he has
received from God: how sensitive
he is to that trust, to what extent he
lives up to it, and to what extent he
proves to be competent with it.
What position man will be able to
attain in the next life depends on
the result of this test.
The supporters of caliphate
also derive support form verse 55,
of Surah nur (24), commonly
known as ayah Ishtikhlaf [The
Verse for Khilafat]:
allah has promised, to those
among you who believe and work
righteous deeds, that He will, of a
surety, grant them in the land,
inheritance (of power), (yasta-khlifanna -hum fe-al-ard) as He granted it to those before them; that He
will establish in authority their
religion - the one which He has
chosen for them; and that He will
change (Their state), after the fear
In which They (lived), to one of
security and peace: They will worship Me (alone) and not associate
aught with Me. If any do reject
faith after this, They are rebellious
and wicked. (Quran;24:55).
Instead of taking this one verse
in isolation, it may be appropriate
that it may be read and interpreted

against the background of the

Quran as a whole. The general
divine policy for grant of Khilafat in
the sense of power, rule, and kingship has been outlined in the verses
of
Quran
mentioned
above.[Quran;3:26, 2:251, 22:40,
5:40, 48:14. 47:38, 4:133, 70:40-41,
35:15-16, 7:69, 7:74, 8:53, 13:11].
Majority of scholars including
Syed abul ala Moududi and
Moulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi
through Ibn Kathir, agree that the
direct addressees of this promise of
allah, were the Muslims living in the
time of the Prophet (peace be upon
him). However indirectly it may also
apply to the future generations of
Muslims under identical conditions.
The promise of allah for bestowal
of successorship (Khalifah) in the
land is onlY for those believers,
who are true in faith, pious in
character, sincere in devotion and
who follow allahs religion in letter
and spirit eschewing every tinge
of shirk (polytheism). allah warn
the hypocrites that this promise is
not meant for those people who
are Muslims in name only, lacking
above mentioned qualities and
pay mere lip service to Islam, they
are neither worthy of this promise
nor its addressees. Therefore
they should entertain no hope of
having any share in Khalifah (successorship) in the land.

Background of
This Revelation

Imam Qurtubi has reported on

authority of abul aliyah that the
Prophet (peace be upon him)
stayed in Makkah for ten years after
commencement of revelation and
declaration of prophethood, during
this period they remained under fear
due to persistent threat to their life
from the infidels and disbelievers.
Then after the Migration (Hijrah) to
Medina there was also ceaseless
danger of attacks from the disbe-

lievers. So, someone asked the

Holy Prophet: Would a time come
to us when we will be able to live in
peace without wearing our weaponry? The Prophet (peace be upon
him) replied Yes, the time is coming
very soon. on that occasion these
verses were revealed. (Qurtubi and
Bahr). allah had made three promises to the Prophet (peace be upon
him), that 1) his ummah will be
made His vicegerent on earth and
will rule over it, and 2) His favourite
religion Islam will be made victorious, and 3)Muslims will be given so
much power and grandeur that they
will not fear to face any threat.
allah fulfilled His promise by
conferring conquest over Makkah,
Khyber, Bahrain, and the whole of
Yemen and the entire peninsula of
arabia even during the lifetime of
the Prophet (peace be upon him).
also he received jizyah, (poll tax)
from the Zoroastrians of Hajar and
some Syrian territories. The kings
and rulers of rome, egypt,
alexandria, oman and ethiopia sent
gifts to the Prophet (peace be upon
him), and gave him honour and
respect. Then during his caliphate
abu Bakr crushed all the menacing
uprisings. He also sent out Islamic
armies to Persia, Syria and egypt.
Busra and Damascus fell to Islamic
State during this time. Just before
his death, abu Bakr in his wisdom
nominated umar Ibn Khattab as his
successor. The period of caliphate
of umar Ibn Khattab was golden
period of good governance. During
his caliphate the entire land of Syria
and egypt and major part of Persia
were overpowered. It was during his
time that the myth of grandeur of
Byzantine and Persian empires was
shattered. after that period, during
the caliphate of uthman the Islamic
influence extended from the east to
the al-Maghrib (West) north africa.
In the west up to cyprus, and in the
east up to china. Besides, Iraq,

Defence Journal
33
33

OpiniOn
Khorasan and ahwaz (now in Iran)
all fell to Islamic State during the
time of third caliph. What the
Prophet (peace be upon him) has
said according to a Sahih Hadith
that he was shown the entire east
and west of the earth by bringing
them together, and that the rule of
his ummah will extend up to all
those places which have been
shown to him; this promise was fulfilled by allah even during the time
of caliphate uthman. once adi Bin
Hatim came to the Prophet in a
delegation, the Prophet told him
that this Din al-Islam will extend all
over and such peace will be established that a woman shall travel
alone without guards and return
back to Hera after circumambulating Kaaba, she will have no fear.
adi Bin Hatim added that now
women travel without any fear.
(extract from Ibn Kathir).
according to another Hadith the
Prophet (peace be upon him) has
said that caliphate will last for thirty
years after him, then there will be
callous rule. Here, the word
caliphate means the rightly Guided
caliphate (al-Khalifah rashidun),
which was run on the footsteps of
the Prophet (peace be upon him). It
lasted up to the time of 4th Khalifah
ali. at this point Ibn Kathir has also
reported a Hadith from Sahih
Muslim, that Jabir Ibn Samurah has
said that he had heard the Prophet
(peace be upon him) saying that his
ummah will continue ruling until the
twelve caliphs last. after narrating
this Ibn Kathir has commented that
this hadith is pointing that there will
be twelve upright caliphs in the
Muslim ummah, which is bound to
happen. However, it is not necessary that all twelve come one after
the other and there is no gap in
between, rather it is more likely that
they turn up with an interval of time.
out of this lot, four rightly Guided
caliphs (Khulafa) had appeared

one after the other immediately after

the Prophet (peace be upon him)
umar Ibn abdul aziz who came
after a gap of some time. a few others also appeared in different times
after him and will continue to come
until the last caliph Mahdi (Guided
one) comes. There is no mention in
the Hadith of those twelve caliphs
which the Shiites have determined.
rather some of them are those who
have no connection with the
caliphate at all. It is also not necessary that all of them would be of the
same status, and during their time
there would be complete peace and
tranquillity. This promise is related
to rectitude and firmness of faith,
the righteous deeds and total obedience, and any difference in their
degree will naturally make difference in the power and control of
authority. Islamic history spread
over a period of 1400 years is a
witness that in different times and
different, countries whenever and
wherever there was a just and
righteous ruler, he has received his
share from this promise of allah
based or, the extent of righteous
deeds he has performed. at another place, the Quran says that:
for, all who ally themselves with
God and His apostle and those
who have attained to faith - behold,
it is they, the partisans of God, who
shall prevail!(Quran;5:56).

Islamic Democracy

Muslim democrats, including

ahmad Moussalli (professor of
political science at the american
university of Beirut), argue that
concepts in the Quran point
towards some form of democracy,
or at least away from despotism.
These concepts include shura(consultation), ijma (consensus), al-hurriyya (freedom), al-huqquq alshariyya (legitimate rights). for
example shura (al Imran 3:159,
ash-Shura 42:38) may include

electing leaders to represent and

govern on the communitys behalf.
.. and consult them in the matter .. (Quran; 3:159)
who obey their lord and establish Prayer; who conduct their affairs
by consultation, and spend out of
what We have bestowed upon
them(Quran;42:38)

Explanation by
Syed Abul Ala Modudi

This thing has been counted

here as the best quality of the
believers and has been enjoined in(
Surah aal-Imran, ayat 159). on this
basis, consultation is an important
pillar of the Islamic way of life, and
to conduct the affairs of collective
life without consultation is not only
the way of ignorance but also an
express violation of the law prescribed by allah. When we consider
why consultation has been given
such importance in Islam, three
things become obvious:
first, that it is injustice that a person should decide a matter by his
personal opinion and ignore others
when it involves the interests of two
or more persons. no one has a
right to do, as he likes in matters
of common interest. Justice
demands that all those whose
interests are involved in a matter
be consulted, and if it concerns a
large number of the people, their
reliable representatives should be
made a party in consultation.
Second, that a man tries to do
what he likes in matters of common
interest either because he wants to
usurp the rights of others for selfish
ends, or because he looks down
upon others and regards himself as
a superior person. Morally both
these
qualities
are
equally
detestable, and a believer cannot
have even a tinge of either of these
in himself. a believer is neither selfish so that he should get undue benefits by usurping the rights of others,

Defence Journal
34
34

OpiniOn
nor he is arrogant and self-conceited that he should regard himself as
all-wise and all-knowing.
Third, that it is a grave responsibility to give decisions in matters
that involve the rights and interests of others. no one who fears
God and knows what severe
accountability for it he will be subjected to by his lord, can dare
take the heavy burden of it solely
on himself. Such boldness is
shown only by those who are fearless of God and heedless of the
Hereafter. The one who fears God
and has the feeling of the accountability of the Hereafter, will certainly try that in a matter of common
interest he should consult all the
concerned people or their authorized representatives so as to
reach, as far as possible, an
objective and right and equitable
decision, and if there occurs a
mistake one man alone should not
be held responsible for it.
a deep consideration of these
three things can enable one to
fully understand that consultation
is a necessary demand of the
morality that Islam has taught to
man, and departure from it is a
grave immorality which Islam does
not permit. The Islamic way of life
requires that the principle of consultation should be used in every
collective affair, big or small. If it is
a domestic affair, the husband and
the wife should act by mutual consultation, and when the children
have grown up, they should also
be consulted. If it is a matter concerning the whole family, the opinion of every adult member should
be solicited. If it concerns a tribe
or a fraternity or the population of
a city, and it is not possible to consult all the people, the decision
should be taken by a local council
or committee, which should comprise the trustworthy representatives of the concerned people

according to an agreed method. If

the matter concerns a whole
nation, the head of government
should be appointed by the common consent of the people, and he
should conduct the national affairs
in consultation with the leaders of
opinion whom the people regard
as reliable, and he should remain
at the helm of affair only as long
as the people themselves want
him to remain in that position. no
honest man can try to assume the
headship of a nation by force, or
desire to continue in that position
indefinitely, nor can think of coming into power by deception and
then seek the peoples consent by
coercion, nor can he devise
schemes so that the people may
elect representatives to act as his
advisers not by their own free
choice but according to his will.
Such a thing can be desired only
by the one who cherishes evil
intentions, and such a fraud
against the Islamic principle of
consultation can be practiced only
by him who does not feel any hesitation in deceiving both God and
the people whereas the fact is that
neither can God be deceived nor
the people be so blind as to regard
the robber, who is committing robbery in the bright day light openly,
as their well wisher and servant.
The principle of consultation as
enshrined in amru-hum shura bainahum by itself demands five things:
(1) The people whose rights and
interests relate to collective matters,
should have full freedom to express
their opinion and they should be
kept duly informed of how their
affairs are being conducted. They
should also have the full right that if
in the conduct of the affairs they see
an error, a weakness or a deficiency, they can check it and voice a
protest, and if they do not see any
change for the better, they can
change their rulers. To conduct the

peoples affairs by keeping them

silent and un-informed is sheer dishonesty which no one can regard as
adherence to the principle of consultation in Islam.
(2) The person who is to be
entrusted with the responsibility of
conducting the collective affairs,
should be appointed by the peoples consent, and this consent
should be their free consent, which
is not obtained through coercion,
temptation, deception, and fraud,
because in that case it would be
no consent at all. a nations true
head is not he who becomes its
head by trying every possible
method, but he whom the people
make their head by their own free
choice and approval.
(3) The people who are appointed as advisers to the head of the
state should be such as enjoy the
confidence of the nation, and obviously the people who win representative positions by suppression or
by expending wealth, or by practicing falsehood and fraud, or by misleading the people cannot be
regarded as enjoying the confidence in the real sense.
(4) The advisers should give
opinion according to their knowledge and faith and conscience and
they should have full freedom of
such expression of opinion.
Wherever this is not the case, wherever the advisers give advice
against their own knowledge and
conscience, under duress or temptation, or under party discipline, it
will be treachery and dishonesty
and not adherence to the Islamic
principle of consultation.
(5) The advice that is given by a
consensus of the advisers, or
which has the support of the
majority of the people, should be
accepted, for if a person (or a
group of persons) behaves independently and acts on his own
whims, even after hearing the

Defence Journal
35
35

OpiniOn
advice of others, consultation
becomes meaningless. allah does
not say: They are consulted in their
affairs, but says: They conduct
their affairs by mutual consultations. This instruction is not implemented by mere consultation, but
for its sake it is necessary that the
affairs be conducted according to
what is settled by consensus or by
majority opinion in consultation.
along with this explanation of the
Islamic principle of consultation, this
basic thing also should be kept in
view that this consultation is not
independent and autocratic in conducting the affairs of the Muslims,
but necessarily subject to the
bounds that allah Himself has set by
His legislation, and is subject to the
fundamental principle: It is for allah
to give a decision in whatever you
may differ, and if there arises any
dispute among you about anything,
refer it to allah and the Messenger.
according to this general principle,
the Muslims can hold consultations
in Shariah matters with a view to
determining the correct meaning of a
text or verse and to find out the ways
of implementing it so as to fulfill its
requirements rightly but they cannot
hold consultations in order to give an
independent judgment in a matter
which has already been decided and
settled by allah and His Messenger.
[Source: Tafheem ul Quran:
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafhe
em.php?sura=42&verse=30&to=53]
Government by the people is not
therefore necessarily incompatible
with the rule of Islam, whilst it has
also been argued that rule by a religious authority is not the same as
rule by a representative of God.
This viewpoint, however, is disputed by more traditional Muslims.
Moussalli argues that despotic
Islamic governments have abused
the Quranic concepts for their own
ends: for instance, shura, a doctrine that demands the participation

of society in running the affairs of its

government, became in reality a
doctrine that was manipulated by
political and religious elites to
secure their economic, social and
political interests at the expense of
other segments of society,
Much debate occurs on the
subject of which Islamic traditions
are fixed principles, and which are
subject to democratic change, or
other forms of modification in view
of changing circumstances. Some
Muslims allude to an Islamic
style of democracy which would
recognize
such
distinctions.
another sensitive issue involves
the status of monarchs and other
leaders, the degree of loyalty
which Muslims owe such people,
and what to do in case of a conflicting loyalties (e.g., if a monarch
disagrees with an imam).

Philosophophical
Views

The early Islamic philosopher,

al-farabi (c. 872-950), in one of his
most notable works al-Madina alfadila, theorized an ideal Islamic
state which he compared to Platos
The republic. al-farabi departed
from the Platonic view in that he
regarded the ideal state to be ruled
by the prophet, instead of the
philosopher king envisaged by
Plato. al-farabi argued that the
ideal state was the city-state of
Medina when it was governed by
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as its
head of state, as he was in direct
communion with God whose law
was revealed to him. In the absence
of the prophet, al-farabi considered
democracy as the closest to the
ideal state, regarding the republican
order of the rashidun caliphate as
an example within early Muslim history. However, he also maintained
that it was from democracy that
imperfect states emerged, noting
how the republican order of the

early Islamic caliphate of the

rashidun caliphs was later replaced
by a form of government resembling
a monarchy under the umayyad
and abbasid dynasties.
a thousand years later, the modern
Islamic
philosopher,
Muhammad Iqbal, also viewed the
early Islamic caliphate as being
compatible with democracy. He
welcomed the formation of popularly elected legislative assemblies in
the Muslim world as a return to the
original purity of Islam. He argued
that Islam had the germs of an economic and democratic organization
of society, but that this growth was
stunted by the monarchist rule of
umayyad caliphate, which established the caliphate as a great
Islamic empire but led to political
Islamic ideals being repaganized
and the early Muslims losing sight of
the most important potentialities of
their faith.
One may agree or disagree
with interpretations to arrive at
the most suitable political system
[Khilafah, Islamic democracy or
kingship] for Muslims, but one
may not go the extreme to
declare any one not agreeing
with a particular point of view as
apostate or outside the folds of
Islam. Being an Ijtehadi matter,
any one opinion or more than one
may right or suitable for any particular time and people, a possible wisdom of not defining but
laying down broad principles of
justice and consultation with in
Sharia law. However appointment or election of four rightly
guided Caliphs clearly rejects
any political system which is
hereditary not based upon
Justice, consultation and Sharia.
Islamic democracy refers to a
political ideology that seeks to apply
Islamic principles to public policy
within a democratic framework. In
practice, two kinds of Islamic

Defence Journal
36
36

OpiniOn
democracies can be recognized in
Islamic countries. The basis of this
distinction has to do with how comprehensively Islam is incorporated
into the affairs of the state.
1. a democratic nation state
which recognizes Islam as its state
religion and key source of legislation, such as Pakistan, Malaysia or
Maldives. Many religious values are
incorporated into public life, but
Islam is not the only source of law.
2. a democratic state which
endeavours to institute Sharia and
offers more comprehensive inclusion of Islam into the affairs of the
state. States like Iran are firm proponents of this form.
not all of these states are recognized internationally as democratic under concepts of western
liberal democracy. There are also
states in the Muslim world which
are secular democracies rather
than religious democracies.
The concepts of liberalism and
democratic participation were
already present in the medieval
Islamic world. The rashidun
caliphate was an early example of a
democratic state but the development of democracy in the Islamic
world eventually came to a halt following to the SunniShia split.
In the early Islamic caliphate, the
head of state, the caliph, had a position based on the notion of a successor to Prophet Muhammads (pbuh)
political authority, who were ideally
elected by the people or their representatives, as was the case for the
election of abu Bakar, uthman and
ali (r.a) as caliph. after the rashidun
caliphs, later caliphates during the
Islamic Golden age had a much lesser degree of democratic participation, but since no one was superior
to anyone else except on the basis of
piety and virtue in Islam, and following the example of Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh), later Islamic
rulers often held public consultations
with the people in their affairs.

The legislative power of the

caliph (or later, the Sultan) was
always restricted by the scholarly
class, the ulama, a group regarded
as the guardians of the law. Since
the law came from the legal scholars, this prevented the caliph from
dictating legal results. laws were
decided based on the ijma (consensus) of the ummah (community),
which was most often represented
by the legal scholars. In order to
qualify as a legal scholar, it was
required that they obtain a doctorate
known as the ijazat attadris wa lifttd (license to teach and issue
legal opinions) from a madrasa. In
many ways, classical Islamic law
functioned like a constitutional law.
Democratic religious pluralism
also existed in classical Islamic law,
as the religious laws and courts of
other
religions,
including
christianity, Judaism and Hinduism,
were usually accommodated within
the Islamic legal framework, as
seen in the early caliphate, alandalus, Islamic India, and the
ottoman Millet system.
legal scholar l. ali Khan
argues that Islam is fully compatible with democracy. In his book, a
Theory of universal Democracy,
Khan provides a critique of liberal
democracy and secularism. He
presents the concept of fusion
state in which religion and state
are fused. There are no contradictions in Gods universe, says
Khan. contradictions represent the
limited knowledge that human
beings have. according to the
Quran and the Sunnah, Muslims
are fully capable of preserving
spirituality and self-rule.
furthermore, counter arguments to these points assert that
this attitude presuppose democracy as a static system which only
embraces a particular type of
social and cultural system, namely
that of the post-christian West.
(constitutional theocracy)

Pakistan

The objectives resolution is a

basic and primary document of the
constitutional history of Pakistan. It is a
framework that provides mechanism
to achieve goals for a better life of the
people of Pakistan. Its important that it
embraces centrality of Islam to polity
sustaining their links with the pre-independence period. The aIMl leaders
were modernist Muslims not in
favour of an orthodox religious state
or theocracy, as elucidated by
liaquat ali Khan, the Prime Minister
in his address. Therefore, they
selected the middle way abiding by
the Islamic laws and the international democratic values. The resolution
remains Preamble of all the constitutions due to its importance.
The objectives resolution was
adopted on 12 March 1949 by the
constituent assembly of Pakistan.
The resolution, proposed by the Prime
Minister, liaquat ali Khan, proclaimed
that the future constitution of Pakistan
would not be modelled entirely on a
european pattern, but on the ideology
and democratic faith of Islam. It has
been incorporated in successive constitutions. The objectives resolution
proclaimed the following principles:
1. Sovereignty belongs to allah
alone but He has delegated it to the
State of Pakistan through its people
for being exercised within the limits
prescribed by Him as a sacred trust.
2. The State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen
representatives of the people.
3. The principles of democracy,
freedom, equality, tolerance and
social justice, as enunciated by
Islam, shall be fully observed.
4. Muslims shall be enabled to
order their lives in the individual and
collective spheres in accordance
with the teachings of Islam as set
out in the Quran and Sunnah.
5. adequate provision shall be
made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and
develop their cultures.

Defence Journal
37
37

OpiniOn
6. Pakistan shall be a federation.
7. fundamental rights shall be
guaranteed.
8. The judiciary shall be independent.
The objectives resolution, which
combines features of both Western
and Islamic democracy, is one of the
most important documents in the
constitutional history of Pakistan. at
the time it was passed, liaquat ali
Khan called it the most important
occasion in the life of this country,
next in importance only to the
achievement of independence. It is
included in the annex of the current
constitution of Pakistan by virtue of
article 2a of the constitution.

Conclusion

The system of government in an

ideal Islamic society it to be based
on consultation (shura), the democratic way spelled out by Quran
fourteen centuries ago. The era of
true caliphs could not last beyond
four rightly guided caliphs among
his blessed companions, who followed his footsteps in spreading
knowledge, preaching Islam, and
managing the affairs of Islamic State
according to Sharia. The Western
civilization has been following
roman law and its derivatives,
while the Islamic law (Sharia)
spells out the moral goals of the
community, where state and religion are not separate entity, the
ruler consults scholars and jurists,
but Islam does not have concept of
theocracy. In Islamic society, therefore, the term law has a wider significance than it does in the modern
secular West, because Islamic law
includes both legal and moral
imperatives. Democracy through
consultative process is embedded
in Islamic system of governance.
Democracy has taken a number of
forms, both in theory and practice.
Some varieties of democracy provide
better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.

However, if any democracy is not

structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people
from the legislative process, or any
branch of government from altering
the separation of powers in its own
favour, then a branch of the system
can accumulate too much power and
destroy the democracy. Tolerance
and moderation is hallmark of Islam,
which accords great value to human
life, whether Muslims and non
Muslims alike. The corrupt and incompetent government led by Mr. Zardari
shook the Pakistani peoples confidence in democracy. In fact this was
not democracy but just an illusion of
democracy worked out with a dictator
through nro, for mutual benefit for
power and plunder. The whole world
is benefiting from the fruits of democracy, why should Muslims lag behind?
a modern democratic Islamic republic is with in the spirit of Islamic values and culture. Instead of copying a
particular Western democratic system [countries follow different democratic systems in the West], each
Muslim society should adopt a
reformed democratic system suitable
to its people, faith, culture and environments. calling the head of state /
government as caliph, ameer,
Sultan, president, prime minister etc
is for the people to decide.
The establishment of a global
Caliphate with the spirit of unity
of ummah seems fascinating but
using force to impose it through
wars, mass killings and infighting
among Muslims is self contradictory and against the peaceful
teachings of Islam. However, the

purpose could be achieved

through peaceful means by gradually upgrading OIC like the
European union even if it takes
longer. There are many other
local issues like independence
from neo-colonialism, corruption,
poverty, health, education, economic development, morality,
etc, which need immediate attention through good governance.
One may support a particular
scriptural interpretation for suitable political system for Muslims,
but one may not go the extreme
to declare any one not agreeing
with a particular point of view as
an apostate or outside the folds
of Islam. Being an Ijtihadi matter,
any one opinion or more than one
may be right or suitable for any
particular time and people, a possible wisdom of laying down
broad principles of justice and
consultation with in Sharia law.
However appointment or election
of four rightly guided Caliphs in
different ways clearly rejects any
political system which is hereditary and not based upon Justice,
consultation and Sharia. u

References

1. caliphate: redundant or
relevant? eBook available at:
http://aftabkhan.blog.com
2.
http://pakistanposts.blogspot.com/2013/04/shar
iah-or-democracy-conflict-or.html
3.
http://pakistanposts.blogspot.com/2013/05/cali
phate-khilafat-quran.html
4. http://wikipedia.com

ABOuT THE AuTHOR

Brig aftab ahmad Khan is a freelance researcher and writer, working for peace and interfaith dialogue. His research work is regularly
published in DJ (www.defencejournal.com), which has been compiled
in the form of e-Books available at: http://aftabkhan.blog.com for study
or download. Some books [printed copies] are provided free, at your
doorstep [within Pakistan], please SMS name and complete postal
address at +92300-4443470

Defence Journal
38
38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.