Islam and Democracy: In Search of a Debate

[Book under discussion: Khaled Abou El Fadl, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2004]

Khaled Abou El Fadl is a renowned scholar of Islamic jurisprudence. He has authored numerous books on various branches of Islam, including Islamic law and Sharia. In 2003, he wrote a long essay titled 'Islam and the Challenge of Democracy'. A major debate emerged centering around this essay, in which about eleven scholars participated, including Nader Hashemi, Jeremy Waldron, Saba Mahmood, and Mohammad Fadel. Some praised Fadl's position, while others criticized it. Fadl later gave a combined response to them. This entire debate was later published as a book.

Two points need to be made regarding the reality in which the essay was written and everyone engaged in the debate. Because, behind the entire debate, that reality was so prominent that it would catch the attention of any reader. After 2001, extensive discussions started worldwide regarding the state of democracy in the Muslim world. These discussions went so far that an opinion became widely circulated: Islam inherently does not support democracy in any way; rather, the ghost of authoritarianism is hidden within Islamic theology itself. On the other hand, in many of the states where the majority of the population is Muslim, autocratic regimes were in place. When Fadl wrote the essay and others engaged in the debate in response, there was actually an effort among everyone to address this crisis in one way or another.

Fadl advocates for democracy. But he very consciously refrains from any claim that democracy existed within Islam (or in its history), or that an early form of democracy was present in Islam. He also does not attempt to prove the presence of democracy using a couple of historical examples from the early period of Islam. Acknowledging that democracy is a modern model of state governance and that it originated in Europe, he claims that the inherent intellectual aspects of democracy are not the sole property of Europe. Rather, history proves that the contribution of Islamic philosophy and Muslims to their development is undeniable. He actually attempts to reconcile Islam with democracy from the perspective of theology and philosophy. For instance, is the sovereignty of the people spoken of in democracy contradictory to the sovereignty of God declared in Islamic theology? Fadl's answer is, no.

Why did he choose to explain this from the perspective of theology and philosophy? Because he believes that religion still deeply influences people's practical psychology. Many downplay the role of religion in the lives of Muslims and conclude that the relevance of theological debates has faded. But according to Fadl, in the lives of countless people, and even to himself, God is an everyday reality. Religion is still one of the key determining factors for them in making various decisions. Consequently, he considers this understanding from the realm of religion to be essential. Although the Quran does not dictate any specific type of governance system, Fadl believes that the Quran speaks of certain social and political values that can be considered absolutely central to a system of governance: seeking justice through social cooperation and mutuality; establishing a non-authoritarian and consultation-based governance system; and institutionalizing justice and compassion in social interactions. Fadl believes that Muslims should support any governance system that is conducive to promoting and establishing these values. And, of course, to him, the democratic system is currently just such a suitable system of governance.

To Fadl, the absolutely central elements of democracy are representative government, limiting the government's power, and safeguarding fundamental human rights. The rest of the rights—such as the right to assembly, the presence of opposition parties, etc.—are all actually by-products of these central issues. Once an understanding is reached regarding the central issues, the remaining questions can be easily resolved. However, he also states that this entire process is not an easy task by any means, nor is it a matter of exactly copy-pasting the experiences of others. Rather, he considers his work to be merely at a very preliminary stage.

His theological arguments stand on a few fundamental concepts. One. Human beings are God's vicegerents on earth; Two. This relationship with God is the foundation of individual responsibility; Three. Fulfilling this responsibility as a vicegerent provides the foundation for human rights and equality; Four. Humankind, especially Muslims, has a fundamental obligation to ensure justice and care for God's creation; Five. There is a fundamental difference between divine law and human interpretation (including the possibility of making errors); Six. The state should in no way pretend to embody the sovereignty and majesty of God. All his arguments presented in favor of democracy stand upon this foundation.

These concepts are inextricably linked with each other in Fadl's realm of thought, and their synthesis is the backbone of his core argumentative framework. This can be explained a little further. Fadl says that God has dignified the entire humankind by creating them as His vicegerents or representatives on earth. The responsibility of this vicegerent is to care for the creation and to build a more just and humane world. But, this 'vicegerent' is not above flaws—being a mix of faults and virtues, he is human, the vicegerent of God. This innate characteristic of human beings as vicegerents is extremely crucial to Fadl's reasoning. Because, when he discusses Sharia and Fiqh, and talks about the sovereignty of God, this serves as the presupposition and strong foundation of his discourse. According to him, 'Sharia' is a divine ideal, and 'Fiqh' is the human effort to understand and implement that ideal. Fiqh is never perfect, because it is dependent on human interpretation. Human interpretation by nature can be limited, relative, and flawed. Since Sharia is expressed solely through human interpretation, when the state makes any legal decision, it no longer remains God's law; it becomes the state's law. Because it is the result of human interpretation. To him, calling the state's law directly 'God's law' is a profound theological error. If any state-enacted law fails, then it would have to be accepted as a failure of God's law. This is impossible and unacceptable in Islamic theology.

Keeping this in mind, he reinterprets the concept of 'God's sovereignty' ('Hakimiyyah' or Divine Sovereignty), and also claims that 'God's sovereignty' and democracy's slogan of 'popular sovereignty' are not at odds with each other. Analyzing the historical concept regarding 'God's sovereignty' in a new light, Abou El Fadl says that those who claim that God is the sole lawmaker propagate a kind of 'fatal fallacy'. Because this assumes that certain people can directly and perfectly understand God's will and are capable of implementing it flawlessly. He explains the matter with an incident involving Hazrat Ali (R.A.). The Kharijites had accused Hazrat Ali of accepting human judgment and authority rather than adhering to the rule of God's law. Upon hearing this accusation, Hazrat Ali asked the people to gather around him and brought forward a copy of the Quran Sharif. Then, pointing to the Quran Sharif, he asked it to speak to the people and inform them about God's law. At this, the people present were astonished and exclaimed, "What are you doing? The Quran cannot speak; it is not a human being!" Then Hazrat Ali said, this is exactly my point. The written Quran is actually just ink and paper; it does not speak on its own. Rather, it is human beings who, through their limited intellect and opinions, give meaning to the Quran and put it into effect. Using this example, Fadl says, “To a believer, God is almighty and the sole owner of the heavens and the earth. But when it comes to enacting laws in a political system, if it is said that God is the only lawmaker, then from the perspective of Islamic theology, it becomes a dangerous and unacceptable fantasy. Because such a claim assumes that some human beings possess complete and perfect knowledge of God's will, and that they can implement the divine will without any human interpretation or bias.” (p. 9) 

Fadl further expands on this explanation, saying that the claims made about God's sovereignty often assume that divine law seeks to control all types of human social and interpersonal relationships, and that Sharia is a complete moral code—which provides specific guidance for every situation in life. To Fadl, this is not the case. He says that perhaps God does not want to control everything in human life; rather, on the condition of adhering to certain minimum moral standards—such as upholding human dignity and well-being—He has given human beings sufficient freedom to manage their own lives. According to the Quranic narrative, God has honored human beings because of the wondrous capacity of the human intellect, which is actually a manifestation of divine attributes. It can be said that since this intellectual capacity of human beings and the human being itself are a kind of divine symbol, protecting the dignity and integrity of that symbol is a moral responsibility. Here he highlights the core message of Hazrat Ali: God's sovereignty cannot be an excuse for escaping human responsibility. God's sovereignty does not free human beings from their moral responsibility. Rather, Fadl says, “When a human being tries to get closer to God's beauty and justice, he does not deny God's sovereignty; rather, he honors it. Likewise, preserving the moral values that reflect God's attributes is also a way of honoring God.” (p. 9) 

Consequently, he warns that by dismissing the role of human experience and intellect and citing only divine texts as the source of law, the concept of 'God's sovereignty' is actually turned into authoritarianism at the end of the day. He does not consider God's sovereignty to be an obstacle to popular sovereignty and human freedom and independent thought as 'vicegerents'. Abou El Fadl argues that if any state claims it is implementing 'God's law', it inevitably has to reach a position where it presents itself as the representative of divine perfection. Theologically, this is highly problematic and can be tantamount to a form of idolatry. For this reason, he believes that democracy is compatible with Islam, because democracy, on the one hand, recognizes the special dignity of human beings, and on the other hand, does not allow the state to claim any divine legitimacy. 

Fadl similarly introduces another critical issue. He states that one of the most important and profound discussions in the Islamic jurisprudential tradition is the distinction between the rights of God and the rights of human beings. The rights of God (Huququllah) refer to those rights that God has reserved for Himself. That is, the power to determine the punishment for the violation of these rights belongs solely to God, and the right to forgive these offenses also rests exclusively with God. These rights are entirely under God's authority and jurisdiction, and humans cannot make any independent decisions here; rather, humans must follow the clear and specific provisions that God has prescribed. But the rights that God has not explicitly reserved for Himself are considered the rights of human beings (Huquq al-Ibad). And in the case of the violation of human rights, the right to forgive also belongs to human beings. That is, if God's rights are violated, God Himself forgives it—and that too through proper repentance or remorse. But if a human being's rights are violated, it can only be forgiven by the person whose rights have been infringed. Citing Muslim jurists within the tradition of Islamic jurisprudence, he states that if ever the rights of God and the rights of human beings come into conflict, in most cases, the rights of human beings should be given priority. The logic behind this is that human beings live in this world with their rights, and protecting those rights is their practical necessity. On the other hand, God establishes His own rights for the welfare of human beings, and if necessary, God is capable of establishing His own rights Himself in the hereafter. However, he wants to further expand the concept of rights here from the Islamic tradition. Whereas earlier a 'right' would arise 'after a specific injustice had occurred', he now speaks of envisioning rights as 'the natural and inherent property of human beings'. That is, rights must be seen as something that human beings possess even before suffering any harm. Fadl says, “The idea that the rights of human beings take precedence over the rights of God in this world never means that God's rights are being denied. Rather, it means that God, if He wishes, is capable of establishing His rights Himself in the hereafter, but our responsibility in this world is to identify and establish those human rights that ensure a justice-based life and, at the same time, show as much respect as possible to the rights declared by God. In this context, the commitment to protecting human rights does not mean disbelief in or disobedience to God. Rather, it is an essential condition for acknowledging human diversity, protecting the dignity of human beings as God's representatives, implementing compassion, and above all, advancing on the path of establishing justice.” (p. 28) 

Photo: Khaled Abou El Fadl​

Here Fadl expresses another unconventional opinion. He says that it is often assumed that the biggest obstacle to the development of individual rights in Islam is Islam's pre-modern jurisprudential tradition. But in reality, that is not the case; rather, according to him, the most serious obstacle has come from modern Muslim society itself. He believes that in the second half of the last century, many Muslim scholars created the baseless notion that Islamic law is fundamentally duty-centric, not rights-centric; and that the concept of rights in Islam is collectivist, not individualist. According to him, these ideas were created mainly due to treating Western or non-Western presuppositions as rigid dichotomies. Such commentators, getting fixated on the Judeo-Christian or Western concept of 'rights', assumed that Islam must certainly be different from it. Consequently, since they speak of rights, we must necessarily speak of something 'else'.

While many compare Fadl's discourse with that of scholars like Rached Ghannouchi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Fadl consciously clarifies the difference between his position and theirs. He states that, unlike the others, he does not believe that Islam established democracy first, nor does he have faith in any linear narrative of democracy based on certain experiences from the early period of Islam. He also believes that they make no serious attempt to address the challenge that democracy poses to the traditional understanding of Islam. Whereas the others advocate for an Islamic state and speak of implementing Sharia law in the name of God, Fadl, on the contrary, believes that any such kind of state is actually tantamount to a form of idolatry. They are also not as vocal in favor of individual rights as Fadl is.

As mentioned earlier, quite serious discussions and debates began over Fadl's essay. Nader Hashemi and Jeremy Waldron praise Fadl's position. On the other hand, Muqtedar Khan criticizes keeping Sharia at the 'center', saying that it increases the risk of creating a dictatorship of Muslim jurists. He rather emphasizes the Charter of Medina. On the other hand, Mohammad H. Fadel believes that Abou El Fadl has moved too far away from 'tradition'. Furthermore, the argument of Kevin Reinhart, Saba Mahmood, and William B. Quandt is: political context, historical forces, and the dominance of Western liberalism are more influential in determining political outcomes than theological arguments.

Photo: Nader Hashemi

Here, a slightly more detailed discussion can be held about two individuals: one who praised, and another who criticized. Nader Hashemi highly praises Fadl's discourse. Why Nader Hashemi praised it can be understood from his own work. He has worked on the relationship between religion, especially Islam, and liberal democracy. He attempted to question the supposed rigid incompatibility between religious politics and the development of liberal democracy. His very question was how liberal democracy would function in Muslim-majority areas, a democracy that requires some form of secularism. He had three main arguments. First, in a society where religion is one of the primary determinants of identity, it is necessary to develop a kind of religion-based theory of secularism. Second, it will not be possible to move towards liberal democracy by shutting the door on religious politics. Consequently, bargaining and negotiation over the normative role of religion in the governance system are an inherent part of this development. Third, for democratization and liberalization, instead of outright dismissing religion, it is essential to provide diverse interpretations and exegeses of religious concepts. Fadl's essay serves as a brilliant example of the kind of understanding Nader Hashemi talked about creating in his work. Consequently, he praises it.

On the other hand, quite severe criticism comes from the renowned anthropologist Saba Mahmood. Saba Mahmood questions, is liberalism the only direction or path for Islam? Why must Islam alone take the responsibility to prove whether it aligns with European values? She speaks about the context of collective rights existing in the history of Islam, beyond individualism. Additionally, she points towards the violent history and trajectory of the tolerance embedded within liberalism. Even while acknowledging Fadl's essay as important from the perspective of philosophical practice, Saba Mahmood makes another criticism—Fadl did not take into account another reality of the Muslim world. The powerful autocratic rulers who hold power in the Muslim world are, in one way or another, backed by the liberal US government.

Photo: Saba Mahmood

Fadl considers it dangerous to present Islamic values as marginal while critiquing the universality of Western values. By placing excessive emphasis on the distinctiveness of Islam, the universality that exists within the experience of Islam itself may remain overlooked. He does not view positively the positioning of Islam as a symbol of protest against the power of Western epistemology. He also sees the danger of cultural relativism there. Fadl, on the contrary, alleges that Saba Mahmood and others fail to notice that the rulers of the Muslim world are continuously oppressing citizens under the pretext of collective rights. He also considers it important to safeguard the individual from the oppression of the state and society.

Book Details

Khaled Abou El Fadl, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2004

Nader Hashemi, Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies, Oxford University Press, 2009

Author Profile: Sohul Ahmed, writer and researcher. Email: sohul.munna118@gmail.com