If democracy is incompatible with Islam, then what are over 145 million Muslims doing in a handful Middle Eastern countries today? Subjected to indiscriminate killing (Bahrain), heavy shelling (Syria), air strikes (Libya) and choking besiegement (Syrian city -Dar’aa) in addition to individual persecution, arbitrary detention and brutal torturing of activists. If democracy is a must hate for Muslims -as per the recent 60 minutes guest Ibrahim Siddiq-, then why over 800 Egyptians paid their lives in the struggle towards democratising their country. Surely, conceptualisations of democracy differ from one context to another; however, underlying values which inform democratic practice are almost universal. Personal freedoms, civil liberties, political participation, public accountability, equality, fairness, rule of the law and good governance are all worth fighting for according to 145 million Muslims.
But why is it important for the Australian Muslim community to possess a firm grasp of democratic values, and their relationship -if any- to Islamic values and principles? And whether such a relationship is conflictual, conforming or complementary? Simply because of individuals like Mr Siddiq among others who profess knowledge of Islam and democracy to the extent that he declared them incompatible. Further, he asserted that ‘to be Muslim, you must hate democracy’. If we look into the early Rashidun Caliphate and examine the election process of the third Caliph Othman which was recommended and meticulously expounded by the then-wounded second Caliph Umar, we shall find an epitome regarding political participation and fair representation. Mr Siddiq and others confuse their understanding of democracy possibly because of the ‘secular’ history which accompanied the emergence of democratic rule in Europe. In this sense, secularism is considered the antithesis of religion, or even the equal of atheism -denying the existence of a creator. Therefore, some Muslims, based on this understanding, ruled out the possibility of compatibility between Islam and democracy, without methodically examining the foundational tenets of democracy and the higher objectives of Islam (maqasid-al-shariah). This explains the hard and rigid stance towards democracy and democratisation from individuals like Mr Siddiq, which clearly indicates that primarily the problem is educational and evidently solutions have to address such deficiency. The Friday congregational prayer which is preceded by a sermon (Khutba), could be a good opportunity to open the eyes of Muslims to the reality of their religion’s teachings. The second Caliph Umar famously said centuries before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “how could you give yourselves the right to enslave people where they’ve all been born free”. Undoubtedly, Caliph Umar’s understanding of Islam is unrivalled, and hence the religious impetus to strive for freedom and emancipation.
On the other hand, democratic ascension in continental Europe had been accompanied by an atmosphere of rejecting religion because of bitter experience with Christian clergy in the centuries preceding the Renaissance. Therefore, this does not mean that democracy itself could only flourish in atheist societies. Few examples from the Muslim world, especially cases such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey, prove that democratic rule can survive alongside wide societal religious commitment. Secularism, in its practical sense, denotes equality, whether equality of opportunity or equality before the law, and the Qur’an is replete with evidence regarding equality. Why then, or how could individuals such as Mr. Siddiq and others, in Australia or somewhere else in the Western world, propagate such unfounded views!? And why alleged professional journalists failed to ask critical questions regarding evidence of his claims, and even his personal credentials? Surely, there are many answers such as Western media want to present Islam as the intolerant, backward and illogical creed -and that is another matter. However, what should interest us as Muslim community is the great amount of distortion created by such views and its detrimental impact on the thinking of our Muslim youth. According to one Prophetic Saying (hadith) that a time will come when al-ruwaibida will talk, then the Companions asked the Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him): what is al-ruwaibida? He said: the ignorant publicly talking about public matters; or in another narration: a nobody publicly elucidating for the public (Al-Albani, authentic collection, no. 1887). Islam maintained its ideological strength for thirteen centuries because interpretation and elucidation of both explicit and implicit messages were solely confined to shrewd scholars.
