Some researchers have taken the ruling system in Islam as a Trojan horse and started to deduce from certain historical practices the nonexistence of human rights in Islam and the abolishment of all legal and jurisprudential heritage in the Islamic history as if Muslims over their history lived in a forest where no right or system. Here we are going to make a comparison between democracy and shura.

These terms are supposed to be known for all at least. We all know democracy as a political system where people participate directly or through their representatives in practicing the power of authority.

The reference of Democracy

The reference of democracy is purely human and refers to the Roman-Greek system of rights; particularly the Greek laws, the most important stage of which seems to be the reform of the constitution of Athena in 508-507 BC- and shortly before at the hands of Solon- when the Athens brought up a new political system and a new ruling body for Athena. This Roman-Greek heritage remained latent for not a short time to be developed later at the hands of the philosophers and the men of law in Europe like, John Adams, Frederic, Sales, Rousseau, and Montesquieu and others.

Shura is an Islamic ruling system. It represents a deep search to come up with a pleasing solution. Shura is a principle and a system to which the gracious Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah called. It is mentioned in the Quran in three contexts:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was ordered to observe Shura “And take counsel with them concerning the [community’s] affairs” [3:159], which means asking for others’ opinion and not being arbitrary. The “affairs” stands for the affairs of life including politics and ruling systems.

The second context is in the description of the noble consolidating society that pleases Almighty Allah who said “Those who furthermore answer [the call of] their Lord and [duly] establish the Prayer and [conduct] their affairs by consultation among themselves and spend [charitably] out of what We have provided them.” [42:38] These are four characteristics: answering the call of Allah and observing the Prayer in addition to two other characteristics related to dealing with people; namely, shura and spending charitably out to the needy.

The third context is about the family life as it deals with the responsibilities of the parents to raise up their infant; particularly if they want to determine the period of nursing. He exalted is He, said “But if both [parents] desire to wean [the child] by their mutual consent and consultation, then there is no blame on either of them.” [2:233]

Thus two of these contexts are concerned with the ruling system and politics and the third is concerned with family affairs. Hence, we perceive that shura is a comprehensive system that covers all fields of life.

So, we can distinguish the most important two kinds of shura: shura in fiqh (Islamic law) as mentioned in the texts and shura in the ruling system and politics. The principle of shuraabides by the most important principle of the shari`ah, which is the independence of the shari`ah from the ruling regime and the rulers. The application of this fundamental principle requires that the practice of shura within the scope of fiqh should serve an exchange of opinions and an independent scientific discussion that is separated from the practice of shurain the field of ruling and politics. Consequently, the political upheavals that could cause dysfunction of shura with regard to choosing rulers and holding them accountable do not necessarily result in the dysfunction of shura in the field of shari`ah and fiqh; that is, in the field of ijtihad and consensus. This is what has protected fiqh over the history of Islam from the impacts of deviations of the ruling systems from abiding by shura in the choice of the rulers, and therefore, this deviation did not result in the dysfunction of shura in the field of fiqh which has stood independent, lofty, and unaffected by the rulers’ deviations.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praised shura and practiced it in life affairs. His companions were aware of that and sometimes they offered their opinions after some regular reservations such as saying “Is this [attitude] based on revelation or on personal opinion?” If he told them that this was based on personal opinion, they would give their opinions; and in many cases the situation changed and he abandoned his own opinion.

But the Quran left to the ummah (Muslim nation) the details and outlines of this universal principle according to their renewing interests and developing needs.

The first test for the awareness of this ummah and its ability to apply the principle of shurawas after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), for he did not appoint a successor after him. He explicitly assigned a deputy with regard to leading people in Prayer, but He left the appointment of the caliph and the head of the state to the nation. His companions were divided into two groups: the group of al-Ansar (the Helpers), who were the original inhabitants of Median, and the group of al-Muhagereen (the Émigrés), the people of Mecca,. They convened in the house of the leader of al-Ansar and exchanged opinions and arguments.

Then alliance was paid by the public at the mosque and in other places that Islam reached such as Mecca.

Muhammad Asad, an Austrian Muslim, claimed that this was the first democratic experience. It may not be democratic in the Western sense, but it was at any rate a great human experience. Such noble, half-Bedouin people, who were strong fighters, convened without arms to discuss without any use of insulting words or threats to agree on selecting one of them. The one they selected said in his first public speech after assuming presidency, “I have been elected to be in authority over you, though I am not the best among you. Obey me as long as I obey Allah. However, if I disobey Him, no obedience will be due to me upon you.” Moreover, the fact that Sa`d ibn Ubadah, the head of al-Anasar, refrained from paying alliance, though his son paid it, and none said a word or objected to him indicates that something big has changed in the life of the Arabs. The age of shura has started.

Al-Mawirdy has determined the functions of the head of the state in ten points; some of them are religious responsibilities, such as watching over good practices of the obligations of the religion including Prayer, Fasting, and Hajj-pilgrimage; and some are secular functions, such as collecting money, protecting the borders of the state against any external or internal aggression and ensuring internal security through the application of the shari`ah to protect souls and properties and ending disputes through the appointment of judges.

All these procedures aim eventually to protect fundamental human rights. The right of obedience is opposed by the duty of establishing justice and fairness. This is indicated by the pledge of alliance, which is the best way to elect the highest authority in a state or kingdom. The pledge of alliance is like a contract between two parties: the ruler on the one side and the subjects on the other side. Abu Bakr, the first caliph expressed this nature of the contract when he said, “I am but an employee for Muslims.”

But there is a third dimension, which is the religious dimension and the ethical bond of the pledge of alliance which puts responsibility on both parties with regard to its role and demands sincerity and honesty. The ruler has to do sincerely all his duties in full with justice and fairness and to appoint competent persons in the positions of commissioned and executive ministries, as called by al-Mawirdy. The sincerity of the subjects is manifested through helping the ruler in his tasks and giving him counsel and advice within the frame ofshura, which is a system that complements the system of the pledge of alliance. It is an inevitable Islamic obligation that requires guiding and straightening up the rulers according to the statement of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) who said to the subjects, “If you see any crookedness in me, straighten me up.”

But the nature of shura differs from public criticism and open condemnation which may turn into an armed dispute. It is a quite search for the correct opinion with fair means and with public interest as the ultimate goal. If well employed, the system of shura can correct the course of the state.

This third dimension in the system of the pledge of alliance and shura distinguishes it certainly from the social contract as seen by Jan Jack Rousseau owing to its religious source as well as its other consequences. But the system of the pledge of alliance was applied by the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) first in the form of direct pledge of alliance given after a nomination from the preceding ruler to a person known as a crown prince and then in the form of appointing a shura council to select someone from among them. This indicates that this system responds to the needs of time and place to achieve benefits, keep away evils, terminate turmoil, and block the reasons of war before its eruption. Nevertheless, the rights and duties in Islam are sure and confirmed.

The most important support of human rights in the shari`ah is the independence of judiciary. The judge refers to nothing but the shari`ah and his conscience points out this independence. This is indicated by the message sent by `Umar, the commander of the believers (may Allah be pleased with him), to Mu`awiyah, his governor over Syria and Palestine, where he said, “You have no authority over `Ubadah ibn al-Samit”, who was the judge of Palestine. Here `Umar, thus, puts an end to the interference of governors in the judiciary affairs.

It is well known that the fourth caliph Ali, commander of the believers (may Allah be pleased with him) stood with a Jew before his judge Shurayh who judged in favor of the Jewish man over the caliph.

Even the Islamic state was judged against by its court in the famous case of Samarkand. The Muslim army seized the town; but its people raised objection concerning not respecting the legal procedures on the part of Muslims. An Islamic court was held after verifying the case and it judged that the Muslim army had to withdraw.

During the Abbasid time the caliph kept himself away from appointing judges and appointed only the judge of the judges, who had to be the greatest jurist known for knowledge and piety and who was entrusted to appoint and dismiss judges. The caliph had no longer any business in this regard.

Before his death Abu Bakr made a will to appoint `Umar as his successor and people gave him the pledge of alliance. `Umar, the commander of the believers, assigned six of the senior companions, whose authority were beyond dispute and who were publically acceptable due to their early conversion to Islam, strive for the cause of Allah, and sincerity, to elect a caliph and commanded them to remain convening until they appoint a caliph. They remained three days and some of them did not sleep. They kept consulting and seeking counsel from people until they agreed upon `Uthman ibn `Affan. According to an authentic narration, leaders of the soldiers who came from Syria, Iraq, Persia, and Egypt to meet the caliph gave him the pledge of alliance. For the first time the leaders of soldiers were mentioned explicitly in the shuraaffairs.

Thus shura was applied in the most serious issue, namely, the sovereign power. But it was practiced also in many of the issues, as the caliph had counselors for every affair. But sometimes he sought the opinion of the public. `Umar informed people with his intention to set a maximum limit for the dowry paid for women, whereupon a woman quoted in response the Quranic verse that says, “And you have given the first of them [as much as] a [heap of] gold in dowry.” `Umar then submissively said: A woman spoke the truth and `Umar spoke wrong.

Let us admit that during the period of the guided caliphs shura concerning serious issues of the state was the task of prominent persons and influential people from among the Emigrants and the Helpers. But it was a pioneering experience in the old heritage of humanity. But the flexibility of the experience and the various forms it took made it developable beyond ready-made forms. The principle affirmed strongly, as clarified by `Umar in his last speech, was that “No one shall be given the pledge of alliance without people consent lest he may be killed along with those who follow him”, as reported in Sheeh al-Bukhary.

This simply means that people’s consent is a must, because contravening this leads to turmoil and fighting.

This is likely what the democracy of the majority aims at. It cannot please all the people, but it keeps people away from wars. This is the best that representative democracy provides. It is based on the system of two poles, as Olivient Duhamel said in his book les democraties. The basic law of the democracy of the ruling majority is the system of two poles or two parties. The voter has, in most cases, to vote for a whole list even if he sympathizes only with some of the allied persons. If he insists to vote for one individual in the list, his voice will be invalid.

It could be said that such polarization may prevent from choosing an actual person. But the point of the process is not to express a personal opinion but to translate the voices of the individuals into a final result with the aim of coming out with a ruling majority.

Anyway, in return for this defect in the bipolar partisan system a great merit appears. Competition between the two camps does not lead to the escalation of the dispute into the eruption of a civil war between the Right and the Left. It rather helps alleviating the disputes and finding a peaceful solution for them.

Shura meets with democracy in the point of looking for a peaceful solution. The system ofshura pours into one stream, which is Islamic justice that is able to secure for man such a good end that democracy is thought to be looking for. Democracy is but a stage in human invention but may not be the last one.

Someone may ask: How was shura practiced and how it should be practiced?

This is quite a legitimate question. I mentioned before that the reference of this paper is Islam. Islam is an ideal that should be reached; and the closer we come to it the better justice will be achieved and the happier man will become.

This system is not rigid or stiff but developable and can benefit from human experiences that respect invariables and authoritative references and assess priorities together with social and security necessities.

In the early period of Islam there was the system of headmen and foremen, as found in the accounts of the prophetic biography. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded people to choose those who would speak in their name, as in the case of the pledge of alliance given the headmen of the Helpers in Mecca –known as Bay`at al-`Aqabah. Similarly, in the case of the battle of Hunayn he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Let your foremen inform me”, because he did not know the attitude and content of the people with regard to his suggestion and so he ordered that they should choose those who would convey their opinion concerning the prisoners of the war with Hawazen. This account is inSaheeh al-Bukhary.

The system of headmen and foremen is quite resemblant to the system of representative elections. An example of this is the case of the pledge of alliance paid for the third caliph `Uthman ibn `Affan (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Katheer reports, “`Umar ibn al-Khattab appointed six persons to consult over the affair. They were: `Uthman ibn `Affan, `Ali ibn Abu Talib, Talhah ibn `Ubaydullah, al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam, Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas, `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf (may Allah be pleased with them). He refrained from specifying one of them and said ‘I would not shoulder your responsibility in my life and in my death. If Allah desires well, He will unify you to agree on the best of them as He unified you to agree on the best among you after your Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).’

After finishing with `Umar, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad gathered them in the house of al-Miswar ibn Makhramah. It was said that this was in the chamber of `Aishah and was said also that this was in the state treasury and was said that this was in the house of Fatimah bint Qays, sister of al-Dahhak ibn Qays. But the first is more likely. Allah knows best.

They sat together and Abu Talhah stood to keep others away. `Amr ibn al-`As and al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah sat behind the door, but Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas pebbled and dismissed them saying “Have you come to say ‘We attended the shura council!'”

It is reported that the people of shura council delegated `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf to do his best to appoint the best of them. It is said that he asked as far as he can and none, neither from the people of shura nor others, but gave preference to `Uthman ibn `Affan. Even when he said to Ali: If I would not appoint you, who would you suggest, O Ali?” He said, “`Uthman”. And when he said to `Uthman, “If I would not appoint you, who would you suggest?” He said, “Ali ibn Abu Talib.”

This was apparently before confining the matter to three from among them and then `Abd al-Rahman withdrew to see the best of them for Islam and appointed, after doing his utmost, the best of the two men.

Then `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) consulted people about them and met with headmen and soldiers as individuals and as groups, privately and publically. He even reached out women in their concealments and children in their schools and asked caravans and Bedouin who came to Medina during the three-day period. He found no two persons differing over giving preference to `Uthman ibn `Affan- with the exception of reports that `Ammar and al-Miqdad recommended Ali ibn Abu Talib. Nevertheless, they paid the pledge of alliance with other people as will be mentioned.

Assuming this responsibility for three days, `Abd al-Rahman did not sleep much and kept praying, supplicating, asking Allah to guide him to the best, and asking people of opinion as well as others. He found none giving preference to other than `Uthman ibn `Affan (may Allah be pleased with him).

On the eve of the fourth day of the death of `Umar ibn Khattab, he came to the house of his nephew, al-Meswar ibn Makhramah, and said: Are you sleeping, Meswar? By Allah, I have not slept much since three days. Go and summon Ali and `Uthman. Al-Meswar said: Which one should I start with? He said: Anyone you like. He said: I went to Ali and said: Answer my uncle. He said: Did he command you to summon anybody else with me? I said: Yes. He said: Who? I said: `Uthamn ibn `Affan. He said: Which one he mentioned first? I said: He gave no command in this regard but rather said ‘Summon anyone of them you like first.’ So I came to you. He said: Thus he came out with me. When we passed by the house of `Uthman ibn `Affan, Ali sat until I entered. I found him praying witer Prayer along with Fajr Prayer. I summoned him and he said to me the same as Ali said to me and then he came out. Then I enter with both of them upon my uncle who was praying. When he finished, he faced Ali and `Uthman and said: Let me take pledge from each one of you that if I appoint him he will observe justice and if I do not appoint him, he will hear and obey. Then he got out with them to the mosque wearing the turban that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave to him and held a sword. He sent to prominent figures from among the  Émigré and the Helpers and it was called “Come to congregational Prayer!” Thus the Mosque was so filled with rows of people that `Uthman found no place to sit in except at the rear of the people as he was a bashful man (may Allah be pleased with him). Then `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf ascended the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing be upon him) and stood on the same step the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stood on and he kept standing for a long time muttering a long supplication unheard by people. Then he said: O people, I asked you privately and publically, in pairs and individually and I found none of you give preference to other than any of these two men  either Ali or `Uthman. Stand up and came here `Ali: Ali stood up below the pulpit. `Abd al-Rahman took his hand and said: Will you give me pledge [to stick to] the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and to the deeds of Abu Bakr and `Umar? He said: No, but to do my best and utmost in this regard. Thus he released his hand and said: Stood up `Uthman. He took his hand and said: Will you give me pledge [to stick to] the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the deeds of Abu Bakr and `Umar? He said: Yes. Then he raised his head to the ceiling of the mosque while his hand was in the hands of `Uthman and said: O Allah, listen and bear witness. O Allah, listen and bear witness. O Allah, listen and bear witness. O Allah, I have rendered the trust of this affair from around my neck to the neck of `Uthman. Thus, people so crowded to give pledge of alliance to `Uthaman that they overwhelmed him below the pulpit. He said: Then `Abd al-Rahman sat at the place where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to sit and made `Uthaman sit below him on the third step. People came to give the pledge of alliance to him and Ali ibn Abu Talib was the first to give the pledge. It was said also that he gave it later.”

This story bears many lessons and deserves analysis. It shows how the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) devised ways and means at that time to know the opinions of people and to reach consent with regard to the choice of the ruler. It also shows the importance of choosing the most competent and the most agreeable. It also manifests the religious and spiritual aspect of the pledge of alliance as `Abd al-Rahman supplicated to Allah and asked Him to bear witness to the process.

These elements distinguish the Islamic shura from other systems, though it meets with some other systems in the denial of despotism and repression.

Over the Islamic history after the first generation other models of shura were found. I shall give one example; namely, the reign of Jahour in Andalusia known as “the governing body” early in the fifth century. Professor Muhammad Abdullah `Anan said, “Jahour was the head of a special kind of government. He did not rule solely or managed and decided the affairs autocratically. Rather, he gathered around him the elite leaders and headmen and he spoke in their name or in the name of the body. He referred the issues to them and the decisions were issued in their names. When he was asked for money or any other affair, he would say, “I have no authority to give or withhold. Only the body has this authority and I am their secretary.” If something of significance comes up or he intended to manage a serious issue, he would summon and consult them. If a letter was directed to him, he would not look into it unless it was in the name of the ministers. Thus Jahour spoke and decided every affair in the name of the body not in his own name. Along with this, Jahour took another brilliant procedure. He did not change his ministerial position and did not move from his house to the palaces of the caliphs. He only arranged door attendants and retinues just as the situation during the caliphate was. He kept himself in authority until a suitable person would come to render authority to him. He arranged men to receive the sultanic wealth and he was the supervisor over them. He did not assume any title or take procedure to manifest his sovereignty or surround himself with any manifestation of splendor and magnificence. He rather maintained his previous condition of seclusion, modesty, contentment, and easygoingness treating all with clemency and good manners. He amended judiciary and worked to observe justice between people. He abolished all sorts of lavishness and extravagance and alleviated taxes. He preserved public funds; particularly the sultanic wealth which he entrusted to trustworthy men over whom he himself was the supervisor. He acted to encourage financial transactions and trade. He distributed money among them as debts they used and got only the profit. They had to keep them and from time to time they would be held accountable for them. The result of these procedures was that welfare took the place of depression, markets thrived, prices became better, houses were profitable, and resources grew.”

Shura and democracy differ in the following points:

First, the reference of shura:

The reference of shura is divine, but the application is human. This means that it is man who chooses the ruler through the process of paying the pledge of alliance and shura and it is up to him to set the systems that guarantee the success of the process.

These systems may be affected by time and place and by the public interest that constitutes the basis of the shari`ah, according to the words of Ibn al-Qaiyyim. Nevertheless, a distinguished characteristic of the Islamic system is the belief that everything belongs to Allah, for He is the Creator of this universe but He did not leave people after their creation. He rather gave them commands and prohibitions. This relation between creation and systemization is pointed out by the verse, “Most surely, to Him belongs all the creation and all the command. Blessed be God, Lord of [All] the Worlds.” [7:54] Allah is High and the Most High, these are of His attributes and names, but He, nevertheless, is near to His creation. He is nearer to them than the jugular vein. Man is but a successor in this earth, “Now, behold! Your Lord said to the angels: I am placing upon the earth a [human] successor [to steward it].” [2:30] Man is a successor and none is the sole ruler.

This dualism between the absolute sovereignty of the Creator with regard to the command, which stands for the fundamentals and invariables of the legislation and the determination of the truth and falsehood, and the possibility- or rather the injunction – that man should use his mind and thought to reach the public interest may be the reason for some to refrain from describing the Islamic system as democratic or theocratic or aristocratic; because none of these systems applies to it.

The symmetry of this duality constitutes the cornerstone in the Islamic system and this is what keeps it away from theocracy which is a divine delegation of authority to the ruler. This is more clarified by the words of `Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, when his scriber wrote in a message he ordered him to write “This is what Allah has shown to `Umar”, whereupon `Umar reproached him saying “Write: ‘This is what `Umar views.’” This is because such description is only restricted to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). `Umar intended to bear the responsibility of his opinion, be it right or wrong.

Therefore, the censorship is three-folded to ensure proper application of man’s proper application of his succession in the earth “Therefore, say [to them]: Do works [of righteousness]! For God will assuredly see your work, and so will His Messenger and the believers.” [9:105]

The watchfulness of Allah effects religious scruple and that of the messenger of Allah leads to following his shari`ah as explained by the scholars. Therefore, the Moroccan scholar al-Yusy said to Sultan Mawlay al-Rasheed, “Scholars judge over ruler.”

As for the supervision of the believers, the pledge of alliance is given by them and so is the consultation. Thus the nation is the source of governance in a sense.

Nevertheless, the pledge of alliance is considered a religious bond between the ruler and the subjects. Obedience to the ruler depends on the application of the shari`ah. The people ofshura are guarded by stipulating their piety and righteousness. Thus the ethical and religious side has a share in addition to the secular side. This is an important and subtle characteristic in the Islamic system that caused some researchers to claim mistakenly that one of the early Muslim caliphs was secular; but this was not as he thought. The nature of the Islamic system gives people a big role not only in the application of rulings but also in their deduction and even their establishment according to a set of evidences known as istihsan (juristic preference) and masalih mursalah (unrestricted public interests) with full respect to the invariable objectives of the Islamic shari`ah.

Thus, when dealing with democracy, a Muslim may feel unfamiliar with its reference, though some may view this as a terminological issue.

Second: the polls

Resorting to polls as a basis of democracy to take a decision without establishing a background and an impenetrable ceiling constantly brings about a resentful group, namely, is the minority which could be about half of the voters. This makes the majority less inclining to reconciliation and balancing between interests. If there is no established tradition with the individuals that the opinion of the majority, which is not on their side, is correct and that they should sacrifice their interests on the basis of other considerations of interest such as considering this as the best possible or the best ever,if this is not established in minds and practice, democracy will turn to be a source of constant dispute and disorder. Belonging to a party could be the only way for an individual to have some freedom or to practice a serious political activity and contribute through the party leader or the sectarian class that dominates the party. Accordingly, the independent individual who does not go with partisanship and its techniques will be considered isolated and ineffective no matter how high his opinions or thought may be or he will be treated as a second-class citizen. It is noted that the slogan of democracy opens a wide door for partisanship and for the evils of partisan bigotry and thus the existence of too many parties has become a danger for the stability of the western liberal democracy which has been torn by uncontrolled whims. On the contrary, excessive domination of one party is the worst evil that plagues public, communist, or military democracy and leads to despotic collective dictatorship exercised by a party that monopolizes the political activity and prevents anyone who does not belong to it from practicing his political rights on equal footing with the members of the party.

On the contrary, the principle of shura opens a wider door for thinkers and intellectuals to contribute with their opinions as individuals regardless of their partisan orientation and thus they contribute in the cultural, social, political, or economic activity more than under democracy that is based on the majority and multi-party system that opens the door for partisan extremity which misuses the principle of the supremacy of the majority. Therefore, the abolishment of parties has become the slogan of revolutions and de coup. Hence, some of the advocates of shura oppose the partisan systems.

Third: media

The voter falls under kinds of deception; particularly through modern media that has possessed massive ability and high potency to exercise influence the public opinion and to introduce the bad as the best and the ugly as the most beautiful.

Therefore, it has not become a characteristic of the third world to elect a person with the majority of votes and then after a while he becomes accused of corruption and other charges. This indicates that the choice was influenced by propaganda in addition to the influence of other unfair means and this makes public interests a victim of individual interests or personal whims.

Consultation or shura, in our view, is not a goal in itself. In Islam it is only a means to achieve justice and to execute the objectives and principles of the shari`ah. It is one of the branches the shari`ah.

Thus, we are keen to distinguish shura from democracy. The status quo attests to that the most boastful countries in terms of democracy are the most aggressive and corrupt countries in the world. They persist in exploiting and isolating weak countries, and this takes place with very democratic decision they take after free consultation that pleases their whims, interests, and greed without any commitment to a divine, ethical, or human principle if this principle will prevent them from achieving their desires and greed.

Democracy should not be a new religion. This is what Hubert Vedrine, French foreign minister, said in a meeting with more than 100 countries in Francovia. He said, “The West inclines to consider democracy as new religion and calls people to embrace”; and Madeleine Albright, former American Foreign minister, replied, “Democracy is not a religion but a faith and conviction.”

This should not be perceived as a decisive refusal of democracy or denial of an important, peaceful, political development that Europe produced in its milieu and that set massive efforts free.

Likewise, countries that went far away from their religious legacy and inherited the governance through de coups may be more worthy of practicing democracy on the basis of the rule of balancing between benefits and corrupts.

Democracy should even be generalized in the international relations as stated in the Charter of the United Nations that speaks of equality between big and small countries and not to confiscate the opinions of the latter countries. But speaking in the name of the international community has become synonymous to the free world. “The United States of America and its Western allies use the international body and its subsequent international institutions, such as the Monetary Fund and the International Bank, to achieve their interests.”

Al-Shawy views that the essence of shura is to hold dialogue and reach conviction. As for democracy, the center of it is the power of the majority, which it uses to practice absolute authority and thus doors open wide to compete and struggle to gain this power or absolute authority. It may also use it against those who compete with or oppose it and hence violate human rights.

He says, “The concept of shura that the Quran enjoins as an Islamic rule to the system of the nation and the society means the freedom which the creed and the high ideals of the society guard. Consequently, legal guarantees for individual freedoms, social justice, political equality are principles derived from the divine shari`ah not from the decisions of the majority- whether in a constitutional form or in a positive law form. It is not under the mercy of the authority of the majority that enacts new constitutions and positive laws and changes them from time to time. They are established principle imposed by our shari`ah. Thus the shura enjoined by the Quran is a positive advanced step, because it provides our social and political systems with established creedal and ethical elements that protect them against the changes of the regimes and the whims of the power of the majority or the minority and against deviation, development, and change that have afflicted the imported democratic principles that match with the unsettled changing European philosophies that are applied in systems that adopt secularism and deny divine shari`ah under the pretext of its being rigid and unchanging and that it limits the authority of the majority in the name of which they demolish everything that prevents them from reaching their desires and changing goals.”

Eminent Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, Vice-Chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IMUS), stated that fatwas permitting killing, as done by some youths in Somalia, are invalid, censuring the use of fatwas as a vehicle for fighting and tribulation, even if under the pretext of defending Shari`ah.

In the last episode of “Ash-Shari`ah Wa Al-Hayah” (Shari`ah & Life), broadcast on 15/11/2009 and entitled “Fatwa Industry”, Sheikh Bin Bayyah gave a juristic description of the current status of fatwa in the Muslim World, highlighting the Somali conflict as a demonstration of Muslim misunderstanding of Shari`ah as well as irrelevant application of religious texts.

The Sheikh asserted that some Somalis attack others and claim that they do so in line with the principle of Wala’ (i.e., loyalty to whatever belongs to Islam) and Bara’ (renunciation of whatever is against Islam). He addressed them, “This is not true jihad, according to Shar`i evidence and texts. You are ignorant of evidence, heedless of sound interpretation, and mistaken in application”.

Customized Fatwas

Bin Bayyah analyzed the Somali model of customizing fatwas in the field of Takfir (i.e., accusation of blasphemy or unbelief) and how they derive rulings. They claim that the government supports unbelievers who should be fought and that whoever supports the government is unbeliever, because it supports unbelievers, which renders it unbelieving.

Criticizing such defective thinking, Sheikh Bin Bayyah said that not every unbeliever is to be fought and that a government that supports unbelievers should not necessarily be disbelieving. “All such notions are evidently erroneous in Shari`ah,” he confirmed.

Bin Bayyah explained that fatwas are divided into three categories:

1. Fatwas on large-scale issues that affect the whole Muslim nation, such as war, Takfir, etc. Such fatwas are to be referred to Fiqh academies.

2. Fatwas on such issues as business, finance, banking, interests, and other contemporary economic questions. Such fatwas are to be referred to reliable specialists.

3. Fatwas on personal issues that have clear religious texts and well-established rulings, which can be referred to ordinary people with fair religious knowledge.

Fatwa Industry

Bin Bayyah pointed out that fatwa-making is an industry subject to certain prerequisites. According to him, just like different political, economic, and social conditions today, fatwas have become unregulated and dangerously out of order. “Fatwa is not free from such disorder,” he said.

Noting that there are “readymade fatwas” available on demand, he described such fatwas as inflexible and are most probably deceptive. As regards the fatwas issued by earlier scholars and imams with evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, Bin Bayyah said, “When issued, such fatwas were relevant to their times and places.” He stressed that fatwas must fit reality, consider objectives of Shari`ah, and weigh benefits and harms. In other words, fatwas must be applied insightfully based on Shar`i evidence and rulings.

Moreover, Sheikh Bin Bayyah clarified that over-the-counter or on-demand fatwas are usual specifically in banking. They come too simplifying to conform to the standard rulings. Another type is fatwas that combine both constancy and change. He elaborated, “Such fatwas must be based on three elements: (1) religious texts, (2) objectives of Shari`ah (i.e., weighing of benefits and harms), and (3) circumstantial factors (i.e., when, where, and who). All such dimensions must be considered; if not, fatwas will turn out lame and deficient”.

Bin Bayyah confirmed that fatwa-related problems stem from nonobservance of the golden rule of fatwa-making: to evaluate partial versus holistic matters and then match them together in harmony and consistency. He stressed that regulation of fatwas can be achieved by adopting a systematic methodology — one that has its roots in the Qur’an, Sunnah, and conclusions derived from both.

Bin Bayyah said that fatwas must consider three things: denotations of texts, objectives of Shari`ah, and reality. Without such trio, fatwas cannot be sound or perfect, especially when addressing complicated issues that need a multifaceted perspective. He added, “From this, we can conclude that a jurist should not issue fatwas on his own, especially in matters that need specialist intervention, such as medical experts, economists, etc.”

Abundance of Fatwas

Concerning the multitude of fatwas issued by different Sheikhs on TV channels, etc., Bin Bayyah maintained that there are basics to be fully known by every Muslim, such as freedom and innocence, which are beyond question. Queries should be only on varying things. He ascribed the many questions asked to muftis to the “backwardness of the Muslim mentality” in all fields: industrial, political, informative, etc.

Islamic Banking

Bin Bayyah stated that many jurists are doing well in the economic field, but unfortunately, they at times disapprove transactions and questions approved by Shari`ah, especially in the fields of finance, economics, and banking, and at other times approve transactions that contravene the Islamic system and its key features.

In the end, the prominent scholar pointed to the importance of careful scrutiny and consultation with specialists in banking and business, as these are sensitive and highly problematic fields. A jurist or mufti must seek advice from economists and bankers to be able to give the right fatwas, Bin Bayyah concluded.

His Eminence Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, member of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, asserted that fatwa-giving is an industry and not a simple task done by anyone without adequate knowledge or insight.

Bin Bayyah said, “Fatwa-giving seems problematic to some. When my book Industry of Fatwawas published, many found it ambiguous. In fact, industry is a highly sophisticated endeavor that requires expertise and skill, not something simple or haphazard. It involves input, processing, and output”.

According to him, fatwa is the “make” or product of several components, including evidence, reality, and the linkage between the two.

“When a question is asked to a mufti, he first examines reality to find out everything about the case at hand. For example, if it is about a modern-style contract, such as insurance, lease purchase, or inflation-caused debts, it is considered in terms of how it evolved and what its components are. Having scrutinized the nature and components of the contract, he looks for the Shar`i ruling that applies exactly to it (if it is simple) or to its components (if it is compound), surveying proofs from express religious texts and evident facts, if any. Otherwise, he uses other discretionary techniques, such as Qiyas (analogical reasoning), Istislah (deeming proper), Istihsan (juristic preference), etc.,” the Sheikh explained.

Vice-Chairman of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), prominent scholar Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, emphasized the importance of having references to limit conflict of fatwas and opinions, confirming at the same time that such references need more effort and organization to be able to protect People of Sunnah by confuting their beliefs and convictions that contradict with the Shar`i sources, i.e., the Glorious Qur’an and the Prophetic Sunnah. In an interview with “Ad-Din Wa Al-Hayah” (Religion & Life), the Sheikh said that People of Sunnah have unified references and sources, such as the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, the Islamic Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League (MWL), and the IUMS. He discussed several issues of concern for Muslims these days. Here is the script of the interview:

Interviewer: Some argue that there should be a Sunni reference. What do you think?

Bin Bayyah: People of Sunnah already have references, which are derived from unified but diverse sources. Thanks Allah, now we have the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, which serves as a reference for all Muslims, as well as MWL’s Islamic Fiqh Council, the Grand Ulema Commission, and the IUMS. Unification of references is important to minimize conflict of fatwas and opinions. However, they still need much effort and mobilization to protect People of Sunnah against any beliefs or views that contradict with the Sunni sources, i.e., the Qur’an and Sunnah. We can deal with all differences without having to initiate clashes or wars against others and while keeping fundamentals and characteristics that cannot be negotiated.

Fatwa Industry

Interviewers: What do you mean by fatwa industry?

Bin Bayyah: I coined this term with the purpose of drawing scholars’ as well as questioners’ attention to the fact that fatwa is not that simple. It is a highly sophisticated process that requires certain scholarly skills and techniques. No one who is unqualified or unpossessed of such skills should engage in fatwa giving; rather, they should seek information from specialists and experts — here, they are religious scholars. Allah says, {So, ask (about anything) the people of knowledge (of that specific thing) if you do not know}. This is the wisdom behind choosing this concept as a title for one of my works.

Scrutinizing Religious Texts

Interviewer: There are some who ignore religious texts on the pretext that there are implied Shar`i objectives. What do you think?

Bin Bayyah: This falls under the fatwa industry mentioned earlier. The relation between overall objectives and detailed texts is so solid. Objectives come from scrutiny of texts, and as such they are Shar`i objectives derived from Shar`i texts — thus, both Shari`ah and objectives are not separate and cannot be seen as contradictory with each other. This delicate notion can be understood only by knowledgeable scholars who are aware of detailed texts and their applications, the holistic objectives and their applications, and the text-objective dialectic and its implications. The soundest methodology is to consider objectives and texts. A true scholar is one who keeps an eye on detailed texts and the other eye on ultimate objectives. To look only at explicit texts is imprudent and incompatible with the example of the Companions of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him). Likewise, being satisfied exclusively with objectives at the expense of relevant texts is a departure from the doctrines of early Muslim scholars. Both objectives and texts should be kept in mind and approached in the very ways that scholars have come up with in Fundamentals of Fiqh, which is a body of criteria for deduction and finding common grounds between both wings.

Fundamentals of Fiqh

Interviewer: You have just said that Fundamentals of Fiqh is a body of criteria for deduction and finding common grounds between Shar`i objectives and detailed texts. Some claim that Fundamentals of Fiqh techniques are no longer sufficient and that we need to renew Fundamentals of Fiqh. How do you comment?

Bin Bayyah: Such claims really do exist, and we need to have a closer look at them. Those who advocate renewing Fundamentals of Fiqh could not perceive the broader picture of this discipline. They need first to explore Fundamentals of Fiqh as left by early Muslim scholars, from Ash-Shafi`i to Ash-Shatibi, to see its great potential for deduction of rulings (including but not limited to word-level and context-level denotations, analogy, juristic preference, unrestricted public interests, blocking means leading to sins, customs, and other major and comprehensive techniques) that, if used well, can provide solutions to all new issues. Then, if such advocates find any deficiency, let them proceed and introduce effective substitutes. It is unacceptable to hold ill-founded or empty claims that only serve to divert us from the tested-and-proven deductive tools and techniques we already have to nothing that can be used instead.

Fatwas and Standards

Interviewer: Do you think there should be standards to govern those who provide fatwas on satellite channels?

Bin Bayyah: Yes. This issue has been addressed by many conferences, specifically the Ifta’ Conference held in Kuwait. It is necessary to define standards and criteria to prevent unauthorized or unreliable fatwas, especially in major issues such as jihad, judgment of disbelief, and other issues of concern for the Ummah. It is not enough to know about Shar`i objectives and reality to be eligible for absolute freedom to give fatwa. One thing a Faqih should be fully aware of is the text-reality dialectic. In addition, there are issues related to Islamic business and economy that not everyone has enough knowledge of. There remain small issues pertinent to acts of worship and ordinary human dealings that a competent Faqih can give fatwas on. Not all issues are equal, according to Ash-Shatibi, nor are they at the same level. Some issues are so critical or sensitive that they should not be handled by those with inadequate expertise. There are issues whose solutions can be found in books regardless of reality, since they have a permanent nature that does not change from one time or place to another. Such kind of issues can be tackled by any erudite Faqih.

Interviewer: Some argue that this is a time of special permissions and not of strict abidance by rules.

Bin Bayyah: Managing matters of religious special permissions and strict rules is one of the basics of Shari`ah. The Islamic Shari`ah has been revealed by Allah, the All-Wise, the Ever-Praiseworthy, and it has been set down in Allah’s Divine Knowledge that the human being is weak and fretful — Allah says, {Fretful when evil touches him}.

Naturally, human circumstances and conditions require both strict rules and exceptions, as people alternate between health and ailment, youth and senility, affluence and insolvency, etc. Shari`ah has taken all such variations into account and made necessary arrangements for every possibility, and so it stands as the Shari`ah of Fitrah (i.e., natural disposition), the Fitrah that Allah has created in humankind. It is by nature to alternate between strict rules and exceptional permissions; who adheres to Shar`i rules can enjoy exceptions in case of emergency, but who rejects Shar`i rules and obligations will not be taken into consideration at all.

Therefore, it cannot be said that our present time is not suitable for full enforcement of Shar`i rules. Well-established rules are still applicable and enforceable, within their own limits, and exceptions are available for cases of necessity. This is the norm of things

Dialogue with the West

Interviewer: You have launched a Global Center for Renewal and Guidance, located in London. What role does it play?

Bin Bayyah: As the name suggests, the center is designed for renewal and guidance; it seeks to re-understand issues facing Muslims. Renewal is not an act of innovation, but rather of renovation. It is an attempt to renew what have been obliterated, due perhaps to lack of understanding. It links (1) Shar`i texts with Shar`i objectives and (2) Shar`i texts and objectives with reality. Through this dynamic linkage, we can modernize our understanding of different issues and realize Shari`ah’s great flexibility and potential, not only for spirituality but for life affairs too. Economic practices, coexistence, and acceptance of the “other” are just examples of issues that need renewed approaches. Guidance, on the other side, is meant to teach Western Muslims basics of good conduct and sound beliefs. To that end, the center runs courses for intellectuals, center leaders, and imams to gird them with refined knowledge in arenas of thought, Fiqh, and Shari`ah; answer their queries; and engage them in lively discussions in which they exchange ideas in an enriching give-and-take process. Interaction is crucial among Muslims in Western countries and even in Muslim-dominated areas, since we are living, as it is always held, in a small village where no nation can be isolated from what is going on in other parts of today’s world. Thus, the Fiqhi discipline that is dubbed Fiqh of Minorities may as well be needed by some majorities in their lived reality, as everyone inevitably would sometimes have unusual cases that need special exceptions from mainstream rulings.

Dialogue Is a Shar`i Requirement

Interviewer: You are one of the advocates of dialogue with the West. But with whom in the West: Politicians, Nations, or Clerics?

Bin Bayyah: There is no problem to hold dialogue with politicians, clerics, intellectuals, or nations in general. First, dialogue is a Shar`i requirement, and our religion has nothing that falls in disharmony with Fitrah or reason; it is a religion of physical and mental evidence. In his interpretation of the Qur’anic verse: {And the religion of truth, so that He may cause it to prevail over all (false) religion}, Al-Hafiz Ibn Al-`Arabi wrote that Islam has spread through logical argument and spiritual conviction, not by means of force or warfare.

Nowadays as Islam and Muslims are stigmatized and charged with terrorism, a phobia fabricated by neoconservatives to destroy the world on the pretext of the so-called reorganization of the world and the Greater Middle East, we feel a stressing need to confute such allegations and show how our religion is one of peace and justice and how the “other” lacks sound logic and good intentions. In fact, some Muslims commit mistakes that those opponents utilize to justify their prejudices and rally more nations against Islam. But they have not been, and will never be, able to make their schemes a reality. In their own homes, neoconservatives are now suffering serious economic and security troubles. At the same time, we are to introduce our true image and put our religion in its rightful position for the benefit of all humankind. Islam in its very core is a mercy to all that exists.

Islamic Economics

Interviewer: Why have Muslim scholars not introduced Islamic economics to the world as a solution to the global financial crisis?

Bin Bayyah: It seems we have not presented it well enough. Existing models of Islamic banks and Shari`ah-compliant financial products have actually played some role, which is not bad, but there is much more they can contribute. Global economy is hammered by a slew of ailments, some technical and some in the underlying philosophy itself. For both categories, Islam has excellent solutions. In the global economic mentality, laissez faire et laissez passer(“let do and let pass”) constitutes the key maxim in business. It implies removal of all restrictions on trade and freedom from state intervention, placing the individual in the center of the whole economic structure. By contrast, Islamic Shari`ah derives its reference from Allah, Exalted be He, based on the concept of trusteeship. Allah says, {And spend of that whereof He (i.e., Allah) has made you trustees}. As a trustee or agent, man does not have absolute freedom, but should rather act within the framework of ensuring good and warding off evil. In the aftermath of 1929’s Great Depression, restrictions were imposed to regulate economy. With the advent of Thatcherism and Reaganism, economic deregulation and promotion of “individual initiative” started, inspired by the pioneering economic philosopher Adam Smith’s theory of the “invisible hand of the market”, which states that the marketplace has a self-regulating nature, by virtue of an invisible and benevolent hand. All that entire system is now shown up to be a total failure. On the other hand, Islamic economics does encourage self-initiative and self-freedom, but within limits and guidelines that adjust the course of economy.

In terms of practical application, we find that only 5 percent of global economy is based on real investment, while the remaining is mere venturing, prediction, and unreal wealth. On the contrary, Islamic economy adopts the principle of exchanging wealth within society at large and not monopolizing it by the wealthy. Allah says, {That you exchange among yourselves}.Exchange is to be only of real wealth. In an authentic hadith, the Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Sell the less-quality dates for (a sum of) dirhams, and then buy with the dirhams good dates”. Money is just a means. We have principles of exchange, or circulation as Ibn `Ashur puts it, and transparency. They have made huge profits from usury, while it is utterly prohibited in Islam to exchange money for money. Even in the West itself, there are voices that speak up against usury. Islam warns that the consequences of usury are dreadful: {But if you do not do (i.e., do not give up usury), then let it be a war (against you) from Allah and His Messenger}.

By the same token, they practice factoring, while Islam bans selling a debt for another, according to the hadith narrated by Al-Bazzar.

Relations with Shiites

Interviewer: Is there a chance of convergence between Sunnites and Shiites?

Bin Bayyah: Such convergence is difficult due to disunity in sources. We believe in the Prophetic biography and legacy as documented in Sunnah books, and we have our own way of interpreting it. We derive our knowledge of the Prophet’s Sunnah from his Companions and family members, and we never find contradiction between love for his family and love for and modeling after his Companions. Difference about sources makes inter-sect concurrence a complicated pursuit. Regardless of such considerations, we call for regulation of such difference to avoid collision. The common ground or umbrella that we all share is “La ilaha illa Allah Muhammad rasul Allah (i.e., There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)” — at the same time, we cannot ignore the differences or allow them to ignite conflicts and disaccord. There is no worship to be served by mutual revilement or censure.

The erudite scholar Abdullah Ibn Bayyah, vice chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, pointed out the characteristics of terrorists and summarised them in three points. He mentioned that they have characteristics that are condemned and rejected by the shari`ah. These are extravagance, extremism, and adoption of strict positions. Ibn Bayyah said that Islam has forbidden extremism in religion; namely, to go to extremity. He quoted the hadith reported by Ibn `Abbas that he (peace and blessings be upon him) said “Beware of extremism in religion. Extremism in religion brought destruction to those who were before you.”

He also forbad extravagance which, just like extremism, is to exceed the limits in words or deeds. In the hadith reported by Ibn Mas`oud we read “Perished be the extravagant!” He said it three times. These three terms denote being away from moderation in thought and speech. This goes contrary to the methodology of moderation and leads to fanaticism and bigotry which are synonymous with extremism and fundamentalism.

Three sides:

Ibn Bayyah discussed the three sides that are directly responsible for the prevention from and the cure of such deviant thought. These are the family, the educational institutions, and the media. He said that the family is the first environment that affects the behavior of young people. Thus it has a significance role in good upbringing which saves children from intellectual and behavioural deviation. Intellectual conceptions are known to move one’s will which soon turns to be practical behavior translating the thought into practice.

He added: Family has a gear responsibility to amend the defect and fill the intellectual gap which the youth suffer from in the age of globalization and flow of exciting thoughts that exhaust the soul, display crimes, and magnify murder and fighting. Ibn Bayyah laid emphasis on the role of the family and said that every family has to teach its children how to distinguish truth from falsehood and darkness from light.

Family plays a significant role in the prevention and cure. When a child is seen to have a feeling of aversion to the society and isolation from the community, the family has to set him on the right path seeking the help of specialists to treat him before it is too late and before he is lost in the corridors of darkness.

Ibn Bayyah talked about the role of the educational institutions and said: They have an effective role in crystallising the conceptions that form the wills of individuals and groups. The more positive, effective and pioneering these institutions are, the more they become able to bring up a generation of leaders and positive and rational individuals; and their students will entertain more intellectual and psychological immunity.

One the other side, the more the educational process fails and the deficiency in presenting the correct ideas and information is, the more loss and failure the graduates will suffer, which will make them more susceptible to deviant ideas and to get involved in the criminal endeavors and futile practices. He said that the educational system from the elementary to the university level, including technical institutions, is responsible for a task that can be described as the task of communicating with the psychological and emotional realm of the student.

Ibn Bayyah talked about the third side defining it as written, audible, or visible national journalism. This side is concerned with daily treatment of events to present, comment on, explain, and direct them. He described its role as decisive, because news has become like daily food for people. He said: But the situation of the national journalism has become very difficult due to the torrential flow of information that includes good and evil, truth and falsehood.  He described this as a mixture that makes the recipient live in a whirlwind of frustration and sometimes of fallacies. But the intelligence of a journalist together with his sincerity to his religion and nation and his abilities and talents enable him to deal with his audience and to ensure success in the ruthless media competition.

Briefly, these three sides, in addition to the role of mosques and intellectual and cultural meetings in social clubs, can form a harmonious system with multiple tools and techniques that have one goal and end to convey the proper message and correct concepts to the youth in order to rectify their behaviour and set aright their inclination and to guide those who went astray to the right way. This is the gain we should aim at in order that the whole ummah should benefit and the youth should succeed.

Ibn Bayyah concluded his speech saying: There are two authorities in this regard. The first is fiqh academies and fatwa institutions that have to refute deviant thoughts and extreme trends and rebut false fatwas and the sophistry of muftis. The second is the authorities whose role in this issue does not differ from their role in all criminal issues as their task is to protect the society from crime and criminals through searching for criminals and collecting evidences to brought criminals to justice.