Islah’s policies and views on contemporary issues [10 points we can all get behind]

[Liqaye]

Thirty years of uninterrupted work with its immense challenges and experiences has

cultivated Islah movement in ways that have sharpened its common vision, mission and

improved its views, strategies and operations. These views are shared among all Muslim

Brotherhood affiliated organizations with slight differences regarding their diverse social

realities.

 

1. Opening up to society

 

Organizations face difficulties in the transition period from underground movement to

open organization. This process requires not only changes of attitudes and norms, but

also projection of a clear set of rules and policies. Social and political realities in Somalia

changed drastically after the collapse of the state in 1991 and the transition from the rule

of the state to clan supremacy. In reality, Islah were not well prepared to deal with new

situations during the initial stages. The reason being that its training programs were

focused mainly on reforming society ruled by state institutions and not in conflict.

Theories of dealing with the clan conflicts were not well developed in the Muslim

brotherhood literature. In particular when the scope of the conflict was so wide and

causes the total collapse of state institutions. Moreover, in the general understanding of

the members of Islah was that the clans were very much connected with that clanism that

is abhorred and disavowed in Islam. Furthermore, after the collapse of the state,

leadership of communities shifted from the state bureaucracy to the traditional leaders

and armed political factions. To interact with such situation, the policy of “Dealing with

the Reality” was finally adopted in 1995. The core philosophy of this policy was to break

isolation of the movement and to open it up to the society at large. Objectives of thispolicy included encouraging members of Islah to participate actively in the existing social

and political organizations and to engage assertively with all groups. The syndromes of

isolation from society and assimilation with the clan culture are not healthy symptoms of

modern Islamic activism. Instead, prudent and positive engagement is the only right way

for the Islamic reformers. Indeed, it was realized after the implementation of this policy

that Islah members could play skillfully the role of “cement or glue” to hold together the

segmented blocks of Somali society.

 

2. Focusing on the educated elite

 

Islam is a religion based on knowledge that shows great respect to scientists and the

educated (ulama)40. Social change not only requires an enlightened elite but also

understanding of the core philosophy of the movement, undertaking that change,

inculcating the masses and taking a leadership role. Bearing these imperatives in mind,

Islah generally recruits to its ranks young and educated segments of the society; young

because they are energetic and open, educated because they may grasp the message easily

and convey it to others41. This means that majority of its members is from young

educated generations. Moreover, Islah had discovered that its perception and outreach

program to the Somali intellectuals was poor. The new policy adopted had considered

these intellectuals as partners for reform and looked for communalities instead of seeking

uniformity. The fruits of this policy were tremendous and its application in the field

brought tangible benefits for the Somali community. The space and reservations between

modern Islamic activists and Somali intellectuals has been narrowed, whereas both the

nationalistic intellectuals and Islamic activists were marginalized during the civil war bythe warlords and the bearers of clannish banners. Finally, Islah believes that creating a

common front and forging an alliance of nationalists and moderate Islamists is the only

way to dislodge clannish and extremist forces and to restore a functioning Somali state.

 

3. Respecting and cooperating with traditional Islamic scholars

 

Islah considers itself as the continuation of the endeavors of generations of traditional

Islamic scholars and the leaders of the national movements for independence. In fact,

traditional Islamic scholars were the sole intellectuals until colonial schools produced new

elites. They represent the spirit of Islam, leaders and teachers of the communities,

protectors of the faith, and saviors of the nation from the attempted Christianization.42

Also, they remain the founders and core pillars of modern Islamic movements and always

play a vital complementary role, particularly in the rural areas and among the mostly

uneducated masses43. Islah widened its vision and discarded previous imprudent relations

with the Sufi orders, by looking upon them as teachers, fathers and leaders of the

communities and giving them due respect, encouragement and support. This deep

understanding of the social dynamics of Somalia is antithesis to the prejudiced isolationist

views that loomed early in the circles of the Islamic movement. These ideas were as a

result of late Salafia influence that focuses on the traditional scholars of the Sufi orders

and consider them as innovators and an obstacle to the revival of Islam. Conversely,

while promoting and advancing authentic Islamic teaching and knowledge within the

context of Islamic moderation, Islah respects and cooperates with the Sufi brotherhoods.

 

4. Respecting the leaders of the nationalist movement

 

Leaders of the national movement for independence and statehood in Somalia have also

received great respect and admiration from Islah. Certainly, considering the scarcity ofhuman capital and the limited organizational capacity that was available in the 1940s and

after, these leaders had an exalted vision for Somalia. Their vision for Somalia was to

establish a strong and all-inclusive Somali state in the Horn of Africa, where all Somalis

might live in peace, harmony and dignity. To give them due respect, one has simply to

imagine what Somalia would have been without their sacrifice and struggle. Modern

activists of Islamic movements are graduates from the schools they established and

beneficiaries of the opportunities they provided. Understanding this, Islah is very proud

of what earlier fathers of the nation achieved with meager resources and limited

capacities. This perception, based on respect and acceptance of all the good things they

did, departs from the previous idea looming among Islamic movement circles of calling

these leaders, secular anti-Islamic and colonial lackeys. Inclusiveness instead of

sectarianism, and tolerance, patience and focus on major issues, agreed upon by the

majority of the Somalis, is the only way to rebuild Somalia with a new vision rendering

due respect for its historical personalities and sacred heritage. In doing so, it does not

mean relinquishing critical review of our past in order to rebuild new Somalia.

5. Downplaying disputed issues of religion

 

The basic references of Islam are the Qur’an and the Sunna of the Prophet Mohammad

(pbh). However, these fundamental sources have been variously interpreted by scholars

in different Muslim regions and times. Therefore, differences of interpretations in the

doctrinal and legal aspects appeared, yielding four famous Sunni legal schools of thought:

Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali. Somalis adhere mostly to the Shafi’i school of legal

thought, so to protect community cohesion and avoid religious squabbles; Islah chose to

adopt Shafi’i school of jurisprudence, while being open to the views of other scholars.

Moreover, Islah rejects all divisive discourses and disputations on the detailed legal

matters and focuses on major fundamental issues, mostly agreed by all Muslims. It also

cooperates with other religious organizations, groups and individuals, to safeguard the religious unity of the Somali people. Furthermore, modern studies of Islam on state

building and its institutions, and on what is in accord with Islamic principles and what is

not, remain academic discourses. Certainly, politics is less developed field in the Islamic

thought; hence, there is a plenty of space for Ijtihad offering many options to various

organizations.

 

6. Rejection of Extremism and Violence

 

Islam is a religion of peace, mercy and humanism, and forbids its believers to commit any

acts of violence against innocent human beings. Thus, Islah rejects such violence and all

forms of extreme views such as the idea of inevitability of clash of civilizations. Instead, it

promotes cooperation, dialogue, understanding and co-existence of all people, races and

religions. Islah understands that extremism and violence is a product of frustration,

humiliation, feelings of injustice and lack of true understanding of religious values.

Therefore, it is the conviction of Islah that respect of multiculturalism, democratization,

narrowing of economic and political marginalization, and better understanding of

cultures and religions will eventually create an environment of peace and cooperation

among nations. In accordance with this understanding, Islah has denounced and rejected

all forms of violence currently taking place in Somalia.

 

7. Restoration of national state institutions

 

Many postcolonial African states have been pushing themselves to the brink of abysmal

failure due to misguided programs of nation-building and economic development.

Somalia is a classic example of such a collapsed state that polarized the population into

clan lines and led to continuous clan fighting and conflicts. Reviving clan consciousness

and weakening national awareness was evident during the civil war. Islah, being a national

organization, strongly believes that reviving national consciousness and disowning

clanism is the only way to recover the Somali state. Divisive clan interference in theaffairs of the state and clan competition for winning political power is the major element

threatening to the existence of Somalia as a state. Accordingly, Islah contributed to the

reconstitution of the national state during the Djibouti reconciliation conference in 2000,

and always defends and supports national institutions, even if these institutions are

established imperfectly and weakly, like the current Transitional Federal Government.

The worst scenario and greatest disaster for Somalia would be the absence of the national

state, which would eventually lead to the total disintegration of the nation into clannish

cages and ghettos.

 

8. Promotion of civil society organizations

 

Islah believes strongly that without vibrant civil society organizations, Somalia will remain

at the mercy of segmented clannish groups. In pursuit of that viewpoint, from 1994 to

1999, the movement worked towards promoting more organized civil society

organizations in Somalia. Members of Islah were encouraged to establish communityowned

organizations and/or to join existing civil society organizations. Particularly in

Mogadishu, many networked social and professional organizations emerged during these

years, and Islah members were part of them44. These organizations had succeeded in

unifying the public voice on the issues of peace, human rights and democracy. In the area

of reconciliation, Islah established the Somali Reconciliation Council in 1994 to offer

logistical support for reconciliation efforts in Somalia. As a result of these policies,

hundreds of community initiatives in the fields of education, health, reconciliation, and

developmental programs were directed to the communities. Civil society values, such as

protection of human rights, promotion of democratic values and good governance, and

promotion of peace received wider participation and support from Islah members. The

growth of civil society organizations, such as professional bodies, charities, women andyouth organizations, those promoting human rights and political parties, is the only way

out of messy political clanism.

 

9. Promotion of democracy

 

Democracy is a western terminology; nevertheless, in its essence as a process is no

different from the Islamic concept of consultation (Shura)45. Some scholars have said that

democracy is similar to Shura that have developed modern institutions of political parties;

and consultation is like democracy that is bounded by the Islamic ceiling and conforms to

the general Islamic principles46. The concept of consultation is characterized in Islam not

only as necessary code to healthy faithful communities, families, and individuals but also

as a required value for piety47. Simplifying this notion, democracy in its ideal form is like

pure water that does not have a shape and color; however, takes the shape and color of

its container. Likewise, democracy takes the color and the shape of the society in which it

is applied. Therefore, democracy exists in different forms corresponding to the will and

the choice of the different people. Since nations are different in their culture, religions

and system of governance, their application of democracy eventually takes different

forms. This means that democracy is applicable to all races, religions and cultures.

Western democracy is not unique; it is necessarily secular and takes a color and shape in

accordance with the western society’s culture, values and belief system. On the other

hand, democracy in Muslim societies has to abide with the Islamic values, and culture of

the people. In that understanding of democracy, Islah promotes democracy and stands

firmly against any form of dictatorial rule in any place in the world and under the pretextof Islam. Finally, Islah firmly exercises democracy within its organization and has been

holding internal elections periodically over the last 30 years.

10. Protection of human rights

Somalia is one of the many nations suffering from the worst kinds of human rights

violations. During 21 years of military rule and 20 years of intensive civil wars, the basics

of human rights have been grossly violated. Protection of human rights is a divine

obligation and a God-ordained concept. In Islam, the human being is dignified and the

whole Islamic legal system is founded on protecting the rights of that human being48.

Mostly, the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December, 1948,

and the other two international pacts of 19 December, 1966 on civil and political, and

economic, social and cultural rights do not contravene completely the Islamic law. Since

these declarations are not binding, different religious groups and civilizations may have

specific reservations and Muslims likewise, while abiding by the declarations in general,

may disagree with some issues that could contravene Islamic principles. However, in

general, Islah promotes the protection of human rights and believes strongly that without

it civilized society can not be established.

11. Promotion of women’s rights

Women’s rights, particularly their rights to political participation, are widely

misunderstood by many Islamists and non-Islamists alike in the Muslim world and

beyond. It seems that the ancient culture of societies and religious interpretations on the

issues of women have been intermingled in the Muslim world. As a result, those

communities where women’s rights are undermined by the culture tend to justify those

practices from the religious point of view. However, "any fair investigation of the teaching ofIslam or into the history of the Islamic civilization will surely find a clear evidence of women’s equality

with man in what we call today “political rights”.49

The position of Islah is very clear in this point. Islah openly advocates the advancement

of the rights of women and strongly supports their social and political participation in

community affairs. Moreover, Islah promotes women’s education in all its social

development programs. The effect of these policies was so great that Somali women are

now playing important roles in politics and social life that were hitherto believed to be in

the domain of men.

 

Taken from Abdurahman M. Abdullahi (Baadiyow) about Islah.

[NASSIR]

Informative, forward looking, inclusive, moderate,n inspiring.thanks.

[Sir-Qalbi-Adeyg]

It's all good, but it's nothing but idealistic rhetoric at the moment. How will all this be implemented?

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

whats the relationship between islah, wahaab and the Islamic brotherhood of Egypt if any?

[Jacaylbaro]

Deputy, Are you Islah sxb ??

 

 

9. Promotion of democracy

 

Democracy is a western terminology; nevertheless, in its essence as a process is no

different from the Islamic concept of consultation (Shura)45. Some scholars have said that

democracy is similar to Shura that have developed modern institutions of political parties;

and consultation is like democracy that is bounded by the Islamic ceiling and conforms to

the general Islamic principles46. The concept of consultation is characterized in Islam not

only as necessary code to healthy faithful communities, families, and individuals but also

as a required value for piety47. Simplifying this notion, democracy in its ideal form is like

pure water that does not have a shape and color; however, takes the shape and color of

its container. Likewise, democracy takes the color and the shape of the society in which it

is applied. Therefore, democracy exists in different forms corresponding to the will and

the choice of the different people. Since nations are different in their culture, religions

and system of governance, their application of democracy eventually takes different

forms. This means that democracy is applicable to all races, religions and cultures.

Western democracy is not unique; it is necessarily secular and takes a color and shape in

accordance with the western society’s culture, values and belief system. On the other

hand, democracy in Muslim societies has to abide with the Islamic values, and culture of

the people. In that understanding of democracy, Islah promotes democracy and stands

firmly against any form of dictatorial rule in any place in the world and under the pretextof Islam. Finally, Islah firmly exercises democracy within its organization and has been

holding internal elections periodically over the last 30 years.

10. Protection of human rights

Somalia is one of the many nations suffering from the worst kinds of human rights

violations. During 21 years of military rule and 20 years of intensive civil wars, the basics

of human rights have been grossly violated. Protection of human rights is a divine

obligation and a God-ordained concept. In Islam, the human being is dignified and the

whole Islamic legal system is founded on protecting the rights of that human being48.

Mostly, the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December, 1948,

and the other two international pacts of 19 December, 1966 on civil and political, and

economic, social and cultural rights do not contravene completely the Islamic law. Since

these declarations are not binding, different religious groups and civilizations may have

specific reservations and Muslims likewise, while abiding by the declarations in general,

may disagree with some issues that could contravene Islamic principles. However, in

general, Islah promotes the protection of human rights and believes strongly that without

it civilized society can not be established.

Halkaasay igaga dhimatay ,,,,,,,,,,,,, khalaas.

[Liqaye]

^^^^ How so sxb?

[Jacaylbaro]

Promoting democracy so that the democratic world would be happy with you miyaa ?? ,, is that part of the policy ??

 

They would just promote the Islamic style of governance instead of renaming it and call it democracy ,,,,,,,,,

[nuune]

JB, You need to highlight more and support your "halkaasey igaga dhimatey" comment, you said something BIG about something of high importance and meaning, and leaving it like that ain't good, bal explain more!

[Liqaye]

Democracy and Shura

Sadek J. Sulaiman

 

Democracy

Democracy literally means rule by the people, and this distinguishes it from any pattern of governance not deriving its legitimacy from the people's choice. Americans define democracy in the words of their sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln: "Rule of the people, by the people, for the people." The definition I usually offer is "public participation in decisions affecting public life."

This participation can be either direct or indirect. In direct participation, the people decide the results by a majority vote. They discuss the issue at hand, then reach a decision representing the collective wisdom. Something akin to this happens in "town meetings." A clear example is when people vote on a "proposition" – a term Americans use when an issue that has generated considerable controversy is referred to the public for resolution. Proposition 187 on immigration in California is a notable example of direct participation. Another is the referendum by which Canadians rejected the separation of Quebec. With indirect participation, the people do not specifically decide issues but elect people to represent their views and make decisions. The elected representatives perform this task within the written parameters of a constitution.

The American constitutional system is based on indirect participation, and the republican system in American constitutional law is centered on the principle of representation. It is appropriate to note, however, that the dynamism of the media in recent years has generated more direct participation in policy-making and legislating. The influence that media talk shows and opinion polls have on elected officials is unmistakably clear.

Democracy's core principle is equality, the affirmation that all people are equal. Any discrimination among people on the basis of race, gender, religion, or lineage is inherently invalid. All people are endowed with inalienable human rights. To secure these rights, governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

The chief characteristics of the democratic system are:

1. Freedom of speech, whereby citizens are able openly to state their views on public issues without impediment or fear, regardless of whether such views are critical or supportive of the government. In the democratic system, it is important for officials to know how the people feel about policies they adopt and decisions they make.

2. Free elections in which citizens regularly, in accordance with precise and constitutionally protected procedures, elect people they entrust with the affairs of governance. Elections legitimize all levels of representation, from the city council to the presidency of the state.

3. Majority rule and minority rights: In the democratic system, decisions are made by the majority, based on the general conviction that the judgment of the majority is more likely to be right than that of the minority. But majority rule does not give a free hand to the majority to do as it wants. Embedded in the democratic principle is the commitment that certain fundamental citizens' rights shall not be violated – for example, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the free exercise of religion.

4. Political parties in the democratic system play an important role. By means of political parties, people freely associate on the basis of their convictions about how to achieve a fulfilling life for themselves, their family, and their posterity.

5. Separation between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, whereby constitutional checks and balances among these three branches of government prevent potential exploitative practices.

6. Constitutional authority is the supreme authority on the validity of any statutory law or executive directive. Constitutional authority means supremacy of the rule of law, not the rule of individuals, in the resolution of any public matter.

7. Freedom of action for individuals and groups, provided they do not infringe on the common good. From this derives the freedom to own property, the freedom to work, the freedom to pursue personal goals, and the freedom to form various associations and corporations.

 

These elements are common to any bona fide democratic system. They are particularly well articulated in the American constitutional system under which we live and whose characteristics, as a great and unique experience in the formation and evolution of nations, we try to understand.

The essentials of the American democratic experience were present at its origin but expanded in scope and evolved in application over time. For example, even though the principle of equality as a foundational idea was firmly established in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the right for free men to vote on an equal basis was not granted until 1850. Black males were not allowed to vote until the fifteenth constitutional amendment in 1870. Females, both free and slave, were not given the right to vote until the nineteenth constitutional amendment in 1920. Finally, the poll tax was not abolished until the twenty-fourth constitutional amendment of 1964.

Thus we see that the American state, one considered an exemplar of democratic systems, although based on a constitution, did not have its constitutionality complete at birth, nor is it complete today. This is because the democratic principle, although recognized as a universal human principle since ancient times, continues to demand better fulfillment in the experiences of all nations. We also see that the democratic principle is one thing and our endeavors to realize its requirements something else. In this latter sense, there is no such thing as an ideal democratic society. We must distinguish, on the one hand, between societies that uphold the democratic principle and endeavor to attain its fulfillment and societies whose rulers reject the democratic principle, exercise autocratic rule and privilege, and deny equality as a moral imperative.

 

Shura

As a concept and as a principle, Shura in Islam does not differ from democracy. Both Shura and democracy arise from the central consideration that collective deliberation is more likely to lead to a fair and sound result for the social good than individual preference. Both concepts also assume that majority judgment tends to be more comprehensive and accurate than minority judgment. As principles, Shura and democracy proceed from the core idea that all people are equal in rights and responsibilities. Both thereby commit to the rule of the people through application of the law rather than the rule of individuals or a family through autocratic decree. Both affirm that a more comprehensive fulfillment of the principles and values by which humanity prospers cannot be achieved in a non-democratic, non-Shura environment.

I do not see Shura as rejecting or incompatible with the basic elements of a democratic system. The Qur'an mentions Shura as a principle governing the public life of the society of the faithful rather than a specifically ordained system of governance. As such, the more any system constitutionally, institutionally, and practically fulfills the principle of Shura —or, for that matter, the democratic principle— the more Islamic that system becomes.

There are cultural specifics rooted in the history of every nation that might justify differences in how the democratic principle is applied, but no Arab or Islamic cultural specifics that explain the level of civic degeneration with which we Arabs are afflicted today. It is neither an Arab particularity nor an article of the Islamic faith that freedom of speech be suffocated in our national experience, that our people be denied free elections, that our affairs be conducted without the benefit of consensus, and that peaceful political activity be forbidden to our masses. It is neither Arabic nor Islamic that our nation's fate should rest in the hands of a few persons unbound by constitutional restraints.

Some people claim that Arabs are not yet ready for democratic or Shura governance and that they do not appreciate the democratic principle and values needed to embrace the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of individuals. Such a claim is perverse, unfair, or bad judgment. Any nation that emerged from the civilization of Islam was enjoined to exercise Shura.

Such nations were nurtured with the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity, values which sustain and enhance the human experience. Such nations simply cannot be less qualified to exercise democracy than other nations.

I regard democracy and Shura as synonymous in conception and principle, although they may differ in details of application to conform to local custom.

They reject any government lacking the legitimacy of free elections, accountability, and the people's power, through the constitutional process, to impeach the ruler for violation of trust. The logic of Shura, like the logic of democracy, does not accept hereditary rule, for wisdom and competence are never the monopoly of any one individual or family. Likewise, Shura and democracy both reject government by force, for any rule sustained by coercion is illegitimate. Moreover, both forbid privileges— political, social, economic— claimed on the basis of tribal lineage or social prestige.

 

Shura and democracy are thus one and the same concept. They prod us to find better and better realizations of the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity in our collective socio-political experience. These principles merit implementation in national life across the entire Arab homeland. Let us hope that Shura or democracy— the choice of terms makes no difference— will find supporters who aspire to a new Muslim renaissance.

[Jacaylbaro]

You are messing it up sxb .... Democracy is not Shura (i mean only Shura) but as you said it is the rule of the people. How about if the people want the Quran to be edited and the majority are demanding that ???

[Liqaye]

the listless lawyer

 

The Young Ottomans, a group of Istanbul writers in the 1860’s, were perhaps the first group of Muslims to claim that Shari’ah was compatible with modern democracy. In fact, the Young Ottomans went further, claiming that Islamic law, correctly understood, required some form of constitutional government. They argued for a return to the spirit of classical Islam, which recognized the sovereignty of the people and the principle of government by consultation.

 

The Young Ottomans advanced two arguments. First, they grounded their arguments for democracy in the concept of shura (consultation), which they derived from the Prophet’s command to “take counsel with them [the Prophet’s followers] in the matter” (Qur’an 3:158). Broadly speaking, shura requires rulers to consult with their subjects on matters of the law, and the Young Ottomans believed that this concept was therefore consonant with the democratic impulse to ground legal legitimacy in the consent of the people. Some contemporary Muslims have continued in that vein, arguing that shura coincides with “an integral component of the Western conception of democracy” (Muhammad Asad) because it “demands open debate among both the ‘ulema [the jurists or clerics] and the community at large on issues that concern the public” (Ali Abootalebi). Coupled with the viceregency of all mankind, which will be discussed in a future entry in this series, shura has therefore been interpreted as strengthening one of the values necessary for democracy: the belief that all people are fundamentally equal in their rights and responsibilities. This has led some Arab intellectuals, such as Sadek Sulaiman, to argue that shura and democracy are “synonymous in conception and principle, although they may differ in details of application to conform to local custom”.

 

Within the context of Islamic law, such arguments are probably not sufficient to establish that democracy is authentically Islamic. Originally, shura did not merely signify consultation; it implied resistance to oppression and to government by force. After the third/ninth century, however, the jurists began to speak of shura as requiring consultation with ahl al-shura (the people of consultation) which was believed to be the same group who constituted ahl al-‘aqd (the people who choose the ruler - more on this on Friday). However, some scholars, such as Fazlur Rahman, have suggested that this later conception of shura was in error, as the Qur’anic conception of shura “does not mean that one person asks others for advice but, rather, [it means] mutual advice through mutual discussions on an equal footing”. In any event, the majority of classical Sunni jurists concluded that the determinations of ahl al-shura were advisory, not compulsory, and that instead (and it’s not entirely clear what this means) the ruler should make his decision in accordance with the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the consensus of the jurists, taken together.

 

Further, contemporary Islamic arguments in favor of democracy sometimes claim that both shura and democratic theory flow from the belief that collective, majority judgments are more likely to produce a fair and just result than the decision of one individual. However, classical Islamic thinkers tended to distrust the laity, concerned that they might “be more content with choosing [to the caliphate] the wrongdoers instead of the righteous”, as Professor El Fadl put it. In response to contemporary arguments, then, it has been argued that the concept of ijma (the infallible consensus of the jurists) implies that the views of the jurists rather than those of the people receive primacy, and that ijma thus stands in tension with shura in that it does not “imply democracy in any modern application of the term”, as Malise Ruthven argued.

 

Finally, the overlap between the principle of shura and the Western concepts of consent and popular sovereignty is not total. Consent, in premodern Islam, meant something closer to acquiescence. Some scholars, such as David Westbrook, have therefore argued that “the liberalism that informs… Western notions of democracy relies on consent in ways different from Islam” and that attempts to conflate the two fail to “confront the question of authority at the heart of the fundamentalist argument”. As John Esposito put it, “A major issue in democratization in Muslim societies is whether or not scholars and leaders have successfully made the transition from listing ‘democratic doctrines of Islam’ to creating coherent theories and structures of Islamic democracy that are not simply reformulations of Western perceptions in some Muslim idioms.”

 

So while the concept of shura might provide some support for democracy within the context of Islamic theology, by itself this argument is too simple. On Friday, then, we will turn to the second argument that the Young Ottoman’s advanced: that the historical election of the caliphate permits the conception of an authentically Islamic democracy.

The Young Ottomans’ next argument noted that Abu Bakr, cousin of the Prophet and the first Rightly Guided Caliph, was chosen by the acclamation of the Muslim community assembled together after the death of the Prophet. Since that time, the classical Sunni theory of the caliphate had always maintained the fiction that the caliph was elected by the leading men of the community, although the manner of election and the number of electors were exteremely ambiguous. Within the umma (community of believers), they pointed out, all are on equal footing. Though the ruler performs a different function, it is the umma as a whole that choose the ruler. Thus, the Young Ottomans argued that, taken together, the principle of shura and the election of the caliphate demonstrated that Islam was, and always had been, fundamentally democratic, and that “all the intervening centuries of autocratic rule had been a tragic diversion from the true path”.

 

Turning to Islamic legal history, Abu Bakr himself is reputed to have said that “God has left people to manage their own affairs so that they will choose a leader who will serve their interests”. Even Abu Bakr, however, circumvented this method of choosing a successor by nominating Umar (the second Rightly Guided Caliph) without consultation. Further, the Islamic conception of political leadership changed over time. When the caliphs eventually lost their effective power, for example, jurists such as Al-Mawardi reconciled the king-making activities of the Buyids with the principle of election by declaring (with al-Ash’ari before him) that an election was valid even if only one elector was present. Obviously, this is not the most democratic of beliefs. Similarly, when the caliphate finally ceased to exist independently, the jurists transferred the concept of the caliphate to the sultanate, requiring only that the sultan acknowledged the universality of Shari’ah (in principle if not always in practice).

 

While the Mu’tazili scholar Abu Bakr al-Asam claimed that the community as a whole retained the right to elect the caliph, with each person individually giving his consent, almost all the other classical jurists argued that the right to choose the caliph resided with those who had the power (shawka) to ensure the obedience of the public at large. Thus, it is not at all clear that the historical practice of electing the caliph reflects a recognition that contemporary democratic theory can be authentically Islamic.

 

Though the arguments of the Young Ottomans, when examined carefully through the lens of classical Islamic law, seem to be unpersuasive, this does not mean that Islam and democracy cannot be reconciled.

[Liqaye]

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

 

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

 

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

 

Dear brother in Islam, thanks for the question you posed; it’s very interesting, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

 

As regards the terms Shura (Mutual Consultation) and democracy, Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris, professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences, Washington, states:

 

"What is Shura?

 

Shura comes from an Arabic word shara whose original meaning, according to classical Arabic dictionaries, is to extract honey from hives. The word then acquired secondary meanings all of which are related to that original one. One of these secondary meanings is consultation and deliberation. The way consultation and deliberation bring forth ideas and opinions from peoples' minds must have been seen to be analogous to the extracting of honey from hives. It might also have been thought that good ideas and opinions were as sweet and precious as honey.

 

According to this purely linguistic meaning, Shura is no more than a procedure of making decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken, or others who can help them to reach such a decision.

 

The important matter on which Shura is made can be either a matter which concerns an individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the whole public. Let us call the first individual Shura, the second group Shura, and the third public Shura.

 

Thus formally understood, Shura has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people - a gang of robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives.

 

There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic. And as a matter of fact Shura in one form or the other was practiced even before Islam. An Arab Bedouin is reported to have said, "Never do I suffer a misfortune that is not suffered by my people." When asked how come, he said, "Because I never do anything until I consult them, astasheeruhum." It is also said that Arab noblemen used to be greatly distressed if a matter was decided without their Shura. Non-Arabs also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Qur'an, in the habit of never making a decision without consulting her chieftains. In this context, the Glorious Qur'an narrates: "She (the Queen of Sheba) said: O chieftains! Pronounce for me in my case. I decide no case till ye are present with me." (An-Namal: 32)

 

What is democracy?

 

What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the people, demos. On the face of it, then, democracy has nothing to do with Shura. But once we ask: "How do the people rule?" we begin to see the connection.

 

'Ruling' implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208)

 

The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that what is meant by 'rule' here is that people make basic decisions on matters of public policy. How do they make those decisions? Ideally, by discussion and deliberation in face-to-face meetings with the people as was the case in Athens.

 

Similarities

 

Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab would have described as Shura. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences between Shura and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life because people who choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population should not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be, and is, therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is almost identical with Shura. There is thus nothing in the primary or extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If Shura can take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form.

 

Islam and secular democracy

 

1. Basic differences:

 

What is it that characterizes Shura when it takes an Islamic form, what is it that characterizes democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are the differences between these forms, and the similarities, if any? What would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I cannot go into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of the vital issues which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks, and therefore give democracy and Shura those special forms when placed within their frameworks.

 

Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have anything to do with public policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a private matter. The first point to realize here is that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with democracy. A people who believe in secularism can therefore without any violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically.

 

Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two choices:

a. They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense that they or their representatives are absolutely free to decide with majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal any laws. This form of democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the people in the place of Allah; in Islam only Allah has this absolute power of legislation. Anyone who claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any one who gives him that right is thereby accepting him as God. But then the same thing would happen if such a secular community accepted the principle of Shura, because they would not then exclude any matter from its domain, and there is nothing in the concept of Shura which makes that a violation of it.

 

b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in which the right of the people to legislate is limited by what is believed by society to be a higher law to which human law is subordinate and should not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with Islam or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is believed to be a higher law.

 

In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the right to deprive a minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed to be their inalienable human rights. Belief in such rights has nothing to do with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw, with a democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also similarities.

 

The basic difference is that in Islam it is Allah's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. A true Muslim never makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make, or accept, legislation contravening the Divine law. Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption.

 

When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it is these kinds of legislation that they have in mind. A Shura without restriction or a liberal Shura would, however, be as un-Islamic as a liberal or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by adoption of Shura instead of democracy.

 

Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal democracy, Islamic Shura is not a political system, because most of the principles and values according to which society is to be organized, and by which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper description of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic and not Shuraic, because Shura is only one component of it.

 

This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and dictatorship. There have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they were so only in that they were not chosen by the true representatives of the Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of the Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers dared, or perhaps even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law.

 

This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another way. It gave the `Ulama' (Muslim scholars) so much legislative power that it was their word, and not that of the ruler that was final on many matters. An interesting section of one of al-Bukhari's chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be rejected.

 

2. Similarities:

 

So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and some of the less basic or minor differences.

 

Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the concepts of democracy and Shura entail.

 

In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as individuals, even if they are in a minority. These rights are said to be inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be violated, even by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if embodied in a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even tyrannical. One might think that the idea of inalienable rights is not compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the people, because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of the population some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that is the rule of the people, and it would thus be undemocratic to not to let it pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so. It is not so because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the people are equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they should be ruled that democracy is the rule of the people. But surely individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in decision-making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive, they must be able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no contradiction between the concept of democracy or Shura and the idea of inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because the former is more basic to democracy than the latter.

 

If I am right in saying that these values are entailed by democracy and Shura, it follows that absolute democracy, that is not constrained by those values, is a contradiction in terms.

 

Islamic Shura agrees with liberal democracy that among the important issues to be decided by the people is that of choosing their rulers. This was understood from the fact that the Prophet chose not to appoint his successor, but left it to the Muslims to do so, and this was what they did in a general meeting in Al-Madinah. When it was reported to `Umar, the second Caliph, that someone said that if `Umar died he would give allegiance to so-and-so as Caliph, he got very angry and said that he would warn the Muslims "against those who want to forcibly deny them (their right)". He later made a public speech in which he said: If a person gives allegiance to a man, as ruler, without a consultative approval of the Muslims, `ala ghayri ma Shurati-n min al muslimeen, then neither he nor the man to whom the allegiance is given should be followed. (Bukhari)

 

As far as my knowledge goes, the manner in which this public right is to be exercised, is not specified in any authoritative statements or practice. The first four, the rightly-guided, Caliphs were chosen in different ways.

 

Is the Islamic state democratic?

 

Can a country that abides by the principle of Shura constrained by Islamic values be described as democratic? Yes, if democracy is broadly defined in terms of decision-making by the people. No, if it is arbitrarily defined.

 

In judging which countries are democratic, we will use a strictly formal definition of democracy. A country is democratic if it grants people the right to choose their own government through periodic secret-ballot, multi-party elections on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage. It could also have been specific on the periods of time between elections.

 

Why should the right to form political parties be a condition for democracy? Suppose that a country gave its people, as individuals, and not as party members, the right to freely choose their government, why should that exclude it from being democratic?

Why should government elections be periodic? Can't a country be democratic and set no limit to the term of its ruler so long as he was doing his job in a satisfactory manner, but gave the elected body that chose him the power to remove him if and whenever they thought that he was no longer fit for the job?

 

Having said all this, I must add that I do not set any great store on the epithet 'democratic'. What is important to me is the extent to which a country is Islamic, the extent to which it abides by Islamic principles, of which decision-making by the people is only one component and, though important, is not the most important.

[Liqaye]

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

 

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

 

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

 

Dear brother in Islam, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

 

In response to the question you raised, we'd like to cite the following comprehensive fatwa issued by the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi; it reads:

 

"Islam wants this nation to consult with each other, and stand as a united body, so no enemy can penetrate it. This is not what democracy is for. Democracy is a system that can’t solve all societal problems. Democracy itself also can make whatever it wants as lawful, or prohibit anything it does not like. In comparison, the Shari`ah as a political system has limits. If we are to adopt democracy, we should adopt its best features. These are the issues of methods, guarantees, and manners of a democratic society. As a Muslim society we should adopt it in an Islamic context of a society that seeks to live with its Shari`ah laws. Our society should abide by what have been made lawful by Allah and also what have been made unlawful by Him. In comparison democracy with a slim majority can cancel all laws and rules. It can even eliminate itself with this type of margin. In fact, in some case democracy may become worse than dictatorship. What I am for is a genuine type of democracy, for a society driven by the laws of Shari`ah that is compatible with the values of freedom, human rights, justice, and equity.

 

I am against this type of distorted democracy that is adopted by many regimes in the Arab-Islamic world. I am really troubled by the four digit results of elections. Most rulers in the Arab world, as well as in the Islamic world are elected by 99.99% of the people. What kind of democracy is this? The people can never consent to anything with this margin. Furthermore, I want draw the attention to the issue of the spread of deviance in the democratic societies. We should take the “good”, and abandon the “bad”. For instance, many democratic countries have allowed types of sexual deviance to spread, and even legalized such behavior. Gays and Lesbians now can marry each other legally.

 

Our democracy is different. It is well connected to the laws of Shari`ah. Yes we adopt some of the principles of democracy, but it is incumbent upon us also to uphold our principles. We have pillars of our Shari`ah that we have to abide by. We want the people to be consulted and participate actively in politics as well as in the process of decision-making.

 

Shura has always been good for the Muslim society, and autocracy has always been evil since the beginning of mankind on this planet. History has told us about dictators such as pharaohs, the Nimord, and many, many examples. The Qur'an tells us about the story of Prophet Ibrahim [Abraham] (peace be upon him) and the Nimrod, the dictator who disputed the existence of Allah, and declared himself as a God. The Qur'an says: “Hast thou not turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham about his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: “my Lord is he who giveth life and death.” He said: “I give life and death.” Said Abraham: “but it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the East: do thou then cause him to rise from the West? Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith? Nor doth Allah give guidance to a people unjust.” (Al-Baqarah: 258) This dictator was so arrogant. To challenge the will of Allah, he asked two people who were passing by during his argument with Abraham to come to him. He ordered one of them to be executed on the spot, and told the other I pardoned you. He said to Abraham “see I gave one life, and I ordered one to death.” However, Abraham was smarter than the dictator and asked him, if he is really a God can he make the Sun rise from the West.

 

The same story repeats itself with the dictator of Egypt, the Pharaoh who declared himself as a God and refused to accept the message sent to him. Throughout history dictatorships, despotic regimes, and unjust regimes have been associated with the issue of corrupting earth. The Qur'an says, “(All) these transgressed beyond bounds in the lands, and heaped therein mischief (on mischief).” (Al-Fajr: 11-12) Allah also says about the Pharaohs of Egypt: “…and remember, we delivered you from the people of pharaoh: they set hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your womenfolk live; therein was tremendous trial from your lord.” (Al-Baqarah: 50) Islam has stood fast against these types of rulers and made it mandatory on the people to resist tyranny and injustices.

 

To conclude, Islam is not anti-democracy. What we want is a free society that lives within the rules and laws of the Shari`ah which is very compatible with the values of democracy, freedom, human rights, justice, development, and prosperity."

 

Both texts taken from islamonline.net

[Fabregas]

It seems like they want to unite and respect everything from Sufism, Democracy,Secularism, Nationalism, etc.

[somali citizen]

In somalia there is no one polotical party or movement that is perfect, what we need is an organasation that can think and at least tolarate other people.

Al-islah in my opinino is the only organasation in somalia that transcend clannish ideolagy and at the same time can adapt quickly in all circumstance. They are not perfect but they proofed that they want harmonise our islamic and somali identity while realising the importance of understanding the global system.

 

Aclassic example is their sucees in educating somali children during this difficult time, they educated hundred of thousands of somalis across somalia and Djibouti. I soluted them becouse at least they didnt'nt kill any somali. if they do not have polotical solution at least they do not kill. while on the other side every one who participated in somali polotics killed thousand of somalia.

This clip shows thier endevour in educating our daughters and sons while the rest are busy killing them under islamic or clannish banner.

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LY3aylxtOUY&feature=related