Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Democracy in Islamic Political Thought

By: Dr. Azzam S. Tamimi

[This paper is based on a lecture given at the Belfast Mosque in October 1997]

Table of Contents

Abstract 3

[Introduction] 4

[Khairuddin At-Tunisi (1810-99)] 5

[Jamal ad-Din Al-Afghani (1838-97)] 6

[Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905)] 7

[Abdurrahman Al-Kawakibi (1849-1903)] 8

[Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935)] 9

[Hassan Al-Banna] 12

[Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) and Mawdudi (1903-79)] 15

[Sa'id Hawwa] 18

[Bennabi] 22

Notes 24

Abstract

This paper surveys the growth and various phases of and influences on the concept of democracy in the Islamic political thought of the last two centuries. Among the thinkers covered in the survey are Rifa'a Tahtawi (1801-73), Khairuddin at-Tunis (1810-99), Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani (1838-97), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Abdurrahman al-Kawakibi (1849-1903), Rashid Rida (1865-1935), Hasan al-Banna (1904-49), Ali Abd Ar-Raziq (1888-1966), Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), Sa'id Hawwa, and Malik Bennabi (1905-73). Reference is made to the influence of Sayyid Mawdudi (1903-79), on the thought of Sayyid Qutb. The paper traces also the bearing of Bennabi's thought on Rachid Ghannouchi and on the Islamic movements of our times.

[Introduction]

Democracy has preoccupied Arab political thinkers since the dawn of the modern Arab renaissance about two centuries ago. Since then, the concept of democracy has changed and developed under the influence of a variety of social and political developments.[1] The discussion of democracy in Arab Islamic literature can be traced back to Rifa'a Tahtawi,[2] the father of Egyptian democracy according to Lewis Awad,[3] who shortly after his return to Cairo from Paris published his first book, Takhlis Al-Ibriz Ila Talkhis Bariz, in 1834. The book summahrized his observations of the manners and customs of the modern French,[4] and praised the concept of democracy as he saw it in France and as he witnessed its defence and reassertion through the 1830 Revolution against King Charles X.[5] Tahtawi tried to show that the democratic concept he was explaining to his readers was compatible with the law of Islam. He compared political pluralism to forms of ideological and jurisprudential pluralism that existed in the Islamic experience:

Religious freedom is the freedom of belief, of opinion and of sect, provided it does not contradict the fundamentals of religion . The same would apply to the freedom of political practice and opinion by leading administrators, who endeavor to interpret and apply rules and provisions in accordance with the laws of their own countries. Kings and ministers are licensed in the realm of politics to pursue various routes that in the end serve one purpose: good administration and justice.[6]

[Khairuddin At-Tunisi (1810-99)]

One important landmark in this regard was the contribution of Khairuddin At-Tunisi (1810-99), leader of the 19th-century reform movement in Tunisia, who, in 1867, formulated a general plan for reform in a book entitled Aqwam Al-Masalik Fi Taqwim Al- Mamalik (The Straight Path to Reforming Governments). The main preoccupation of the book was in tackling the question of political reform in the Arab world. While appealing to politicians and scholars of his time to seek all possible means in order to improve the status of the community and develop its civility, he warned the general Muslim public against shunning the experiences of other nations on the basis of the misconception that all the writings, inventions, experiences or attitudes of non-Muslims should be rejected or disregarded. Khairuddin further called for an end to absolutist rule, which he blamed for the oppression of nations and the destruction of civilizations.[7]

Ghannouchi believes that neither Khairuddin nor any of the Islamic scholars of his time had intended to cast doubt on Islam or introduce changes to it. They only sought to understand Islam better and explore new means and methods to implement it, relying on the explanations of both ancient and contemporary scholars. They sought to legitimize borrowing from the West on the basis that ' . wisdom (or knowledge) is a believer's long-cherished objective', that ' . religion has been revealed for the benefit of the creation', and that ' . [the] Shari’ah and the vital interests of the community are fully compatible'.[8] To implement his reform plan, Khairuddin established the As-Sadiqiyah School for teaching modern arts and sciences within an Islamic framework. The purpose of the School, according to the founding declaration, was: 'To teach the Qur'an, writing and useful knowledge, i.e. juridical sciences, foreign languages, and the rational sciences that might be of use to Muslims being at the same time not contrary to the faith. The professors must inculcate in the students love of the faith by showing them its beauties and excellence, in telling them the deeds of the Prophet, the miracles accomplished by him, the virtues of the holy men . .'[9] Khairuddin At-Tunisi believed that ' . kindling the Ummahh's potential liberty through the adoption of sound administrative procedures and enabling it to have a say in political affairs, would put it on a faster track toward civilization, would limit the rule of despotism, and would stop the influx of European civilization that is sweeping everything along its path.'[10]

[Jamal ad-Din Al-Afghani (1838-97)]

In his search for the causes of decline in the Muslim world, Jamal ad-Din Al-Afghani (1838-97) diagnosed that it was due to the absence of 'adl (justice) and shura (council) and non-adherence by the government to the constitution.[11]

One of his main demands was that the people should be allowed to assume their political and social rule by participating in governing through shura and elections.[12] In an article entitled 'The Despotic Government', published in Misr on 14 February 1879, Al-Afghani attributed the decline to despotism which is the reason why thinkers in the Eastern (Muslim) countries could not enlighten the public about the essence and virtues of the 'republican government'. 'For those governed by it', he stresses, 'it is a source of happiness and pride'. He goes further, to insist that ' . those governed by a republican form of government, alone deserve to be called human; for a true human being is only subdued by a true law that is based on the foundations of justice and that is designed to govern man's moves, actions, transactions and relations with others in a manner that elevates him to the pinnacle of true happiness.'[13] To Al-Afghani, a republican government is a 'restricted government' that is accountable to the public, and that is thus the antithesis of the absolutist one. It is a government that consults the governed, relieves them of the burdens laid upon them by despotic governments and lifts them from the state of decay to the first level of perfection.[14]

[Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905)]

Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) believed that Islam's relationship with the modern age was the most crucial issue that Islamic communities needed to deal with. In an attempt to reconcile Islamic ideas with Western ones, he suggested that maslaha (interest) in Islamic thought corresponded to manfa'a (utility) in Western thought. Similarly, he equated shura with democracy and ijma' with consensus. Addressing the question of authority, Abduh denied the existence of a theocracy in Islam and insisted that the authority of the hakim (governor) or that of the qadi (judge) or that of the mufti was civil. He strongly believed that Ijtihad should be revived because ' . emerging priorities and problems, which are new to the Islamic thought, need to be addressed'.[15] He was a proponent of the parliamentary system and defended pluralism, refuting claims that it would undermine the unity of the ummahh. He argued that European nations were not divided by it. 'The reason', he concludes, 'is that their objective is the same. What varies is the method they pursue toward accomplishing it'.[16]

[Abdurrahman Al-Kawakibi (1849-1903)]

Abdurrahman Al-Kawakibi (1849-1903) wrote two books on the subject, Taba'i' Al- Istibdad (The Characteristics of Tyranny) and Umm Al-Qura (The Mother of Villages). The first is dedicated to defining despotism and explaining the various forms it may take, with much of the discussion focusing on political despotism. The relationship between religion and despotism and what he calls the 'inseparable tie' between politics and religion are also discussed. While stressing that Islam as a religion is not responsible for the forms of despotic government that have emerged and reigned in its name, Al-Kawakibi concludes that 'Allah, the omni wise, has intended nations to be responsible for the actions of those whom they choose to be governed by. When a nation fails in its duty, God causes it to be subdued by another nation that will govern it, just as happens in a court of law when a minor or an incompetent is put under the care of a curator. When, on the other hand, a nation matures and appreciates the value of liberty, it will restore its might; and this is only fair.'[17] The entire book is an attempt to explain the reasons why the Muslim ummahh declined and became easy prey for 19th-century colonial powers. Like Al-Afghani and Abduh, Al-Kawakibi attributed the success of Western nations to ' . the adoption of logical and well-practiced rules that have become social duties in these advanced nations which are not harmed by what appears to be a division into parties and groups, because such a division is only over the methods of applying the rules and not over them.'[18] In his other book, Al-Kawakibi constructs a series of dialogues involving fictional characters whom he describes as thinkers each belonging to a known town in the Muslim world, all summoned to a conference organized in Makka (Umm al-Qura) during the pilgrimage (hajj) season to discuss the causes of decline of the Muslim ummahh. One character, Al-Baligh Al-Qudsi, says: 'It seems to me that the cause of tepidity is the change in the nature of Islamic politics. It was parliamentary and socialist, that is perfectly democratic. But due to the escalation of internal feuds, after the Guided ones (the first four Caliphs) it was transformed into a monarchy restrained by the basic rules of Shari’ah, and then it became almost completely absolute.' Ar-Rumi says: 'The calamity has been our loss of liberty.' In conclusion, Al-Kawakibi stresses that progress is linked to accountability while regress is linked to despotism.[19]

[Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935)]

Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935) saw that the reason for the backwardness of the ummah was that ' . the Muslims have lost the truth of their religion, and this has been encouraged by bad political rulers, for the true Islam involves two things, acceptance of the unity of God and consultation in matters of State, and despotic rulers have tried to make Muslims forget the second by encouraging them to abandon the first.'[20] He stressed that the greatest lesson the people of the Orient can learn from Europeans is to know what government should be like.[21] In his book Al-Khilafa (The Caliphate) he stresses that Islam is guidance, mercy and social-civic policy. About the latter, which he seems to use as a synonym for politics, he says: 'As for the social-civic policy, Islam has laid its foundations and set forth its rules, and has sanctioned the exertion of opinion and the pursuit of Ijtihad in matters related to it because it changes with time and place and develops as architecture and all other aspects of knowledge develop. Its foundations include that authority belongs to the ummah, that decision-making is through shura, that the government is a form of a republic, that the ruler is not favored in a court of law to the layman - for he is only employed to implement Shari’ah and public opinion, and that the purpose of this policy is to preserve religion and serve the interests of the public . .'[22]

Nineteenth-century Islamic political thinkers, who were clearly influenced by European democratic thought and practice, tried to establish a resemblance between democracy and the Islamic concept of shura. Faced with a crisis of government augmented by the autocracy and corrupt conduct of Muslim rulers, they sought to legitimize the borrowing of aspects of the Western model they believed were compatible with Islam and capable of resolving the crisis. However, the trend changed in the aftermath of the First World War and following the demise of the Khilafah (Caliphate), whose abrogation, in 1924, shocked the Muslims in spite of the fact that many of them had suffered greatly at the hands of some Ottoman rulers. The Khilafah was an administrative legacy that for many centuries represented a moral shield and a political entity.[23] The challenge was no longer despotism. The Muslims had already lost their symbol of unity, which they had been trying to reform. The European democracies, which provided inspiration and were greatly admired by reformists in the East, had colonized much of the Arab world, dividing its territories among them as booties. The Western colonizers' endeavors to westernize the Muslims were viewed as a serious threat to the Arab-Islamic identity, and, thus, liberating Muslim lands from colonialism became a priority. Hence, one for revival replaced the call for reform.

During this period, Rashid Rida, Abduh's disciple, published the Al-Manar Journal that attracted a readership of Islamic intellectuals who shared Rida's specific additions to the thoughts of his masters Al-Afghani and Abduh, namely the condemnation of innovations in doctrine and worship and the acceptance of the rights of reason and public welfare in matters of social morality. A young man who frequented Rida's circle and regularly read his Journal, then attempted to carry it on after Rida's death. His name was Hasan Al-Banna (1904-49).[24] Trained by his father Ahmad Al-Banna, a graduate of Al-Azhar University and author of an encyclopedia of Hadith and Islamic Jurisprudence, young Hasan grew up to become the founder of the largest and first international Islamic movement in modern times, the al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood).

Established as a study circle, known as Madrasat at-Tahdhib (The School of Refinement), in 1928 in the Egyptian port city of Al-Isma'iliyyah - the headquarters of the Suez Canal Company and the British forces in Egypt - the group grew rapidly and spread to other parts of the country within a short period of time. Its growth accelerated by the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty and the Arab Revolt in Palestine against the British Mandate and Zionist colonization; the movement quickly transformed itself into a political entity. By 1939 a series of rasa'il (messages or articles), mostly authored by Al-Banna, were circulated explaining the Ikhwan's mission, clarifying its ideas and underlining its method.[25] In the first of these articles, entitled Bayn al-Ams wa'l-Yawm (Between Yesterday and Today), Hasan Al-Banna diagnosed the situation in the Muslim world as follows:

European power expanded, thanks to discoveries, expeditions, and travels to far and distant lands as far as many of the remote Islamic countries like India, as well as some of the neighboring Islamic provinces. Europe began to work earnestly at dismembering the powerful and far-flung Islamic state proposing numerous plans toward this end, referring to them at times as 'the Eastern question' and at others as 'dividing up the inheritance of the Sick Man of Europe'. Every state began to seize any opportunity as it arose, adopting the flimsiest of excuses to attack the peaceful yet careless Islamic state, and to reduce its periphery or demolish parts of its integral fabric. This onslaught continued over a long period of time, during which the Ottoman Empire was stripped of much of its Islamic territory that then fell under European domination, e.g., Morocco and North Africa. Many non-Islamic areas previously under Ottoman rule became independent during this time, e.g., Greece and the Balkan States. The final round of this struggle was the First World War, from 1914 to 1918, which ended in the defeat of Turkey and her allies, providing a perfect opportunity for the strongest nations of Europe, (England and France, and under their patronage, Italy). They laid their hands on the huge legacy left behind by the Islamic nations, imposing their rule over them under the various titles of occupation, colonialism, trusteeship or mandate dividing them up in the following manner: North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis) became French colonies lying in between a zone of international influence in Tangier and a Spanish colony in the Rif; Tripoli and Barca became Italian colonies in which Italy did not wish a single trace of Islam to remain. She forced Italian citizenship upon the people giving it the name of 'South Italy' and filling it with thousands of hungry families and wild beasts in human form (Italian outcasts); Egypt and the Sudan fell under English authority, neither one possessing a shred of independent authority; Palestine became an English colony, which England took the liberty of selling to the Jews so that they might establish therein a national Zionist homeland; Syria became a French colony; Iraq became an English colony; the Hijaz (the Western Province of Arabia) possessed a weak, unstable government dependent on charity and clinging to false treaties and worthless covenants; Yemen possessed an outmoded government and a poverty stricken populace exposed to attack anywhere and at any time; the remaining nations of the Arabian peninsula consisted of small emirates whose rulers lived under the wing of the British consuls and who fought one another for the crumbs falling from their tables, their breasts burning with mutual resentment and hatred. This was the case despite the reassuring promises and binding treaties drawn up by the Allies with the mightiest monarch of the Peninsula, King Hussein, stating that they would help him achieve the Arab independence and support the authority of the Arab Caliphate; Iran and Afghanistan possessed shaky governments beset by power hungry people on every side, they would be under the wing of one nation at one time and under that of another at other times; India was an English colony; Turkistan and the adjoining regions were Russian colonies, subjected to the bitter harshness of the Bolshevik authorities. Apart from these, there were also the Islamic minorities scattered across many countries, knowing no state to whose protection they might have recourse, nor any well armed government to defend their nationality, as, e.g., the Muslims in Ethiopia, China, the Balkans, and the lands of Central, South, East and West Africa. Under such conditions, Europe won in the political struggle, and finally accomplished her goal in dismembering the Islamic empire, annihilating the Islamic state and erasing it politically, from the list of powerful, living nations.[26]

[Hassan Al-Banna]

Al-Banna notes that as each of these nations struggled to regain its freedom and the right to exist as an independent entity, concepts of localized nationalism arose, and many states working towards this revival purposely ignored the idea of unity.[27] From that moment the Muslim Brotherhood launched the struggle for the return of the Islamic empire as a unified state embracing the Muslims that had been scattered around the world, raising the banner of Islam and carrying its message.[28] At this stage, the Europeans ceased to be a model. On the contrary, they were blamed for the ills of the Muslim ummah. 'The Europeans', Hasan Al-Banna wrote:

….worked assiduously in trying to immerse (the world) in materialism, with its corrupting traits and murderous germs, to overwhelm those Muslim lands that their hands stretched out to . they were able to alter the basic principles of government, justice, and education, and infuse in the most powerful Islamic countries, their own peculiar political, judicial, and cultural systems. They imported their semi-naked women into these regions, together with their liquors, their theatres, their dance halls, their amusement arcades, their stories, their newspapers, their novels, their whims, their silly games, and their vices. Here they allowed for crimes intolerable in their own countries, and beautified this tumultuous world to the deluded, naive eyes of wealthy Muslims and those of rank and authority. This was not enough for them, so they built schools and scientific cultural institutes, casting doubt and heresy within the hearts of people. They taught them how to demean themselves, to vilify their religion and their homeland, to detach themselves from their beliefs, and to regard anything Western as sacred, in the belief that only that which is European can be emulated. These schools were restricted to the upper class, the ruling body, the powerful and the future leaders. Those who were unsuccessful in such places were sent abroad to complete their studies. This drastic, well-organised social campaign was tremendously successful since it appealed to the mind. It will continue to exert its strong intellectual influence over a long period of time. Thus, it was far more dangerous than any political or military campaign. Some Islamic countries went overboard in their admiration for the European civilization and their dissatisfaction with the Islamic one, to the point that Turkey declared itself a non-Islamic state, imitating the Europeans in everything that they did. Aman Allah Khan, King of Afghanistan, tried this, but the attempt cost him his throne. In Egypt the manifestations of this mimicry increased and became so serious that one of her intellectual leaders could openly say that the only path to progress was to adopt this civilization: good or evil, bitter or sweet, praiseworthy or reprehensible. From Egypt it spread with strength and speed into the neighboring countries, to the extent that it reached Morocco and encircled the holy sanctuaries within the midst of Hijaz.[29]

Explaining that his movement's mission is one of reawakening and deliverance, Al-Banna declared that the goals of his organization were:

1. Freeing the Islamic homeland from all foreign authority, for this is a natural right belonging to every human being, which only the unjust oppressor will deny.

2. The establishment of an Islamic state within this homeland, which acts according to the precepts of Islam, applies its social regulations, advocates its sound principles, and broadcasts its mission to all of mankind.[30]

Al-Banna warned the Muslims, in general, and the members of his group, in particular: 'As long as this state does not emerge, every Muslim is sinning and Muslims are responsible before Allah the Almighty for their failure and slackness to establish it. In these bewildering circumstances, it is against the interests of humanity that a state advocating injustice and oppression should arise, while there should be no one at all working for the advent of a state founded on truth, justice, and peace. We want to accomplish these two goals in the Nile Valley and the Arab Kingdom, and in every land which Allah has blessed with the Islamic creed: uniting all the Muslims.'[31]

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood took a special interest in stressing that their movement was set up in response to the downfall of the Khilafah. 'When the Khilafah was brought down', Mustafa Mashhoor, deputy leader of the Brotherhood explained: 'Imam Hasan Al-Banna rose up and proclaimed the restoration of the Khilafah to be a religious duty incumbent upon every single Muslim man and woman.'[32] In a message sent to the heads of Muslim states in June 1947, Hasan Al-Banna demanded that they shoulder their responsibilities and undertake the task of serving the ummah. The task, he explained, consisted of two parts: the first, to rid the ummah of its political shackles so as to achieve its freedom and restore its lost independence and sovereignty; and the second to rebuild the ummah anew in order to pursue its path among nations and compete with others for the attainment of social perfection.[33] Hence, Hasan Al-Banna's main concern was to mobilize the public against colonialism and its adverse effects on society. He called for the re- establishment of Islamic governance on three foundations: the ruler's accountability to Allah and to the public, the unity of the ummah within a framework of brotherhood, and respect for the will of the ummah and its right to check its rulers who are obliged to respect its will and opinions.[34] In his analysis of the causes of European progress, he prognosticated the eventual collapse of Western civilization due to immorality, usury and political divisions.

In his message Bayn al-Ams wa'l-Yawm (Between Yesterday and Today), he cites (political) parties as one of the factors that would lead to European decline.[35] Although he stood for parliamentary elections twice, and while stressing that the parliamentary and constitutional system is in essence compatible with the Islamic system of government, he was adamant in his opposition to political parties. He regarded them as a potential threat to Islamic unity, which he deemed was essential for the re-establishment of the Khilafah. 'They (political parties) are this homeland's greatest misdeed, the root of social corruption whose fire is scalding us. They are not genuine parties in the sense by which parties in any other country of the world are known. They are no more than a series of dissension caused by personal disagreements among a number of the children of this ummah. Whose circumstances necessitated one day that they should speak in its name and demand its national rights . There is no more room for half solutions and there is no escape from the inevitability of the dissolution of all these parties. The forces of the ummah ought to be joined in one party that would have to work for the restoration of its independence and freedom, and that would lay down the foundations for general domestic reform.'[36] Between the two World Wars, thinkers affiliated with the liberal trend campaigned, like their 19th-century predecessors for total Westernization. Embracing secularism, they called for formulating modern constitutions and legal systems that, just as the Europeans had done, exclude religion and restrict its rule to the private domain. They hoisted the slogan of 'separating state and religion' and blamed Islam for the backwardness of the Arabs.[37]

The abolishment of the Khilafah in 1924 aroused a debate among thinkers of the time over its importance. Ali Abd Ar-Raziq (1888-1966), an Al-Azhar graduate who later studied at Oxford, contributed to the debate with a book that turned out to be among the most controversial works in modern Islamic history. Abd Ar-Raziq's theory claimed there were no such things as Islamic political principles. He denied the existence of a political order in Islam and claimed that the Prophet never established one and that it was not part of his mission to found a state.[38]

As Arab societies responded to the challenge of colonialism and rose to restore their freedom and struggle for their independence, Westernized elites took over the leadership of national movements that originally had Islamic inclinations. Despotic single-party regimes or absolute monarchies replaced the colonial authorities in most of the Arab countries. Throughout the post-independence era, Islam, its culture and its heritage came under savage onslaught in the name of modernization. The Al-Azhar of Egypt was turned into a secular university, the Tunisian Az-Zaytouna Institute was closed down, awqaf (endowment) institutions were nationalized, Shari’ah courts were either dissolved or marginalized and political parties and groups were banned or outlawed. The Ikhwan, who had already established branches or strong links in many Arab and Muslim countries, were hit hard by Nassir in Egypt soon after he came to power in 1952. Following the execution of several of their leaders and the imprisonment of hundreds of their followers in 1954, they were driven underground. The challenge had once again changed shape. It was no more the challenge and struggle for independence and freedom, but rather the struggle to resist and defend the ummah against what was perceived as a pernicious onslaught against Islam and the cultural identity of the ummah not only by foreign colonial powers but also by post-independence regimes. From then until the early seventies, members of the Islamic movement were influenced mainly by the works of Mawdudi and Nadwi and by the writings of Sayyid Qutb.

[Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) and Mawdudi (1903-79)]

Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), who was imprisoned for ten years in 1954 and then executed in 1966, became the leading ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood from the mid-fifties. His book Milestones, which was written in response to Nassir's persecution of the Ikhwan, acquired a wide acceptance throughout the Arab world after his execution and following the defeat of the Arabs in the 1967 War with Israel. In it, he put forward the thesis of Jahiliyyah (ignorance, barbarity or idolatry), from which Islam came to deliver the world.[39] Qutb divided social systems into two categories: the order of Islam and the order of Jahiliyyah, which was decadent and ignorant, the type which had existed in Arabia before the Prophet Muhammad received the Word of God, when men revered not God but other men disguised as deities.[40] Muslim society, according to him, was itself divided into two realms, that of Islam and that of Jahiliyyah. This was clearly expressed by Qutb in Milestones as follows: 'Jahiliyyah is now present not only in the capitalist West and the Communist East, it has also infected the world of Islam. All that is around us is Jahiliyyah. Peoples' imaginings, their beliefs, customs, and traditions, the sources of their culture, their art and literature, their laws and statutes, much even of what we take to be Islamic culture, Islamic authorities, Islamic philosophy, Islamic thought: all this too is of the making of this Jahiliyyah.'[41] Drawing from the theory of Mawdudi (1903-79) that as Islam has reverted to a state of Jahiliyyah, true Muslims find themselves in a state of war against the apostates, Sayyid Qutb concluded that true Muslims, the tali'ah (vanguards), are and must be set apart within the ambient infidel society as a sort of 'counter-society'. In his trial statement, Sayyid Qutb declared: 'We are the ummah of the believers, living within a jahili society. Nothing relates us to state or to society and we owe no allegiance to either. As a community of believers we should see ourselves in a state of war with the state and the society.'[42]

However, as far as democracy is concerned Qutb seemed to develop his own theory. In this he went much farther than Mawdudi, rejecting the concept altogether, denouncing it as alien, incompatible and jahili. The term hakimiyyah (sovereignty), which Qutb constantly referred to while arguing against man-made political systems, was originally coined by Mawdudi, who used it to distinguish between Islamic and jahili (barbaric) societies. Mawdudi had argued that in a jahili situation, the edifice of politics rises on the foundations of al-hakimiyyah al-bashariyah (human sovereignty) whether such sovereignty rests in the hands of an individual, a family or a class or is the sovereignty of the public. 'Legislating in this kind of reign', Mawdudi explained, 'is entirely in the hands of man. All laws are made and replaced according to desires and to experimental interests. So is the case with political plans, which are only drawn or altered as dictated by the passion for utility and the provision of interests. In such a reign, no word is given precedence and no affair is awarded prevalence except if such were the functions of those who are most cunning, most resourceful and most capable of fabricating lies; those who have reached the pinnacle of deceit, cruelty and guilefulness; and those who have seized full control and are recognized as leaders in their community where, in their ''laws'', falsehood becomes truth just because its proponents have power and have the ability to terrorize, and where, in their courts of law, truth becomes falsehood just because it has no supporter or defender.'[43] In spite of all of this, Mawdudi still believed that Islam, by virtue of the institution of shura, was democratic. In spite of his reservations about the Western liberal democratic practice, he called for a chance to be given to democracy, one which would allow it to adapt and succeed in Muslim countries.[44] Considering the task of reforming the system of government and administration to be part of the Muslim faith, Mawdudi suggested that the means of achieving such a reform would be to 'displace those who are corrupt and misguided from power and to replace them with those who are fit and righteous.'[45] As to how this change could be achieved, Mawdudi stressed:

There is no other way in a democratic system except to participate in the battle of elections, that is by educating the public opinion in the country and changing the people's standard in electing their representatives. We should also reform the election mechanism and cleanse it from theft, deceit and forgery. By doing so, we would be in a position to hand power to righteous men, who are eager to develop the country on the pure basis of Islam.[46]

When asked about the flaws in liberal democracy, he explained to his students that notwithstanding the flaws in any particular form of democracy, the principle that the masses have the right to choose, and to bring to account and replace their government, should always prevail. When asked which method for running the affairs of the people is principally correct, Mawdudi retorted: 'Should those who are in charge of the affairs of the people and who run them on their behalf be appointed by the free will of the people so that they only administer and govern through consultation, and after having obtained the consent of the people, and so that they only remain in power so long as they enjoy the confidence of the public? Or should one person, or a group of persons, impose themselves upon the people, take charge of their affairs and run such affairs according to their own whims, and whose appointment or dismissal, or whose running of the people's affairs, are beyond the will or control of those who are being run by them?'[47]

He further explained that any flaws in democratic practice were due to three main reasons. The first, the assumption that the masses are the source of total power and absolute sovereignty, while in effect, and in any attempt to set up an absolute democracy in the world, the masses come under the control of, and suffer the hegemony, of very few individuals. Mawdudi suggested that Islam had a solution for this problem. 'Islam', he stressed, 'rectifies this flaw at the outset by imposing a siege on democracy derived from a basic law dictated by the Creator, Master and True Sovereign of this universe. This is a law that both the public and those in charge of administering its affairs are obliged to abide by. Thus, the question of absolute independence, which eventually causes democracy to fail, does not arise.'[48]

The second and third reasons, Mawdudi argued, pertain to the standard of education and the degree of awareness of the electorate, or what he refers to as the masses. Here too, Islam provides an answer with its emphasis on educating the Muslims, ' . preparing them morally and calling on each of them to have a sense of responsibility'.[49] For democracy to yield its fruits and proceed successfully, Mawdudi argued, that much would depend on the existence of a strong and vigilant public opinion. 'Such a public opinion', he explained, 'comes [in] to being when the community comprises righteous individuals who are entered in a social system that is established on [a] sound basis, [one] that is so vivid that evil and those who invite to it do not grow whereas good and those who invite to it do grow.'[50]

Reaffirming that Islam may provide all the necessary rules and teachings for such guarantees to be maintained, Mawdudi expressed his conviction that once these guarantees are secured the apparatus of democracy might function successfully. 'It might also be possible', he added, 'that whenever a flaw appears somewhere in this apparatus, mending it would be provided for by a better apparatus. The mechanism of self-correcting, together with progress and development, would suffice for democracy to be given an opportunity and be experimented with, for it is possible through experimentation to develop any deficient apparatus until it become[s], step by step, perfectly sound.'[51]

On the other hand, Qutb seems to have been completely opposed to any reconciliation with democracy. In the beginning, he was opposed to the idea of calling Islam democratic and even campaigned for a just dictatorship that would grant political liberties to the virtuous alone. In his Tafsir (interpretation) of Surah al-Shura (Chapter 42 of the Qur'an) he said: 'Democracy is, as a form of government, already bankrupt in the West; why should it be imported to the Middle East?'[52] Sayyid Qutb and his disciples, including Sa'id Hawwa of Syria and Dr. Abdulqadir Abu Faris of Jordan, in their treatment of the issue of democracy took an anti-Western position. Their discourses exhibit a lack of interest in the origin, nature or conditions of democracy or of its compatibility or incompatibility with Islamic values. In all discussions, the abstract democratic concept is confused with the attitude or policies of Western democracies toward the Arab world and Muslim issues. Their rejection of democracy was, understandably, a reaction.

Meditations On Husayn’s Speech On The Day Of Ashura

Husayn (as) addressed the people on the Day of Ashura, saying:

“You have drawn the sword with which we armed you, against us, and ignited the fire we kindled against our enemy and yours, against us. So you have joined hands with the forces of your enemies against your allies, in spite of being aware that they (your enemies) have not established any justice among you, nor do you expect any good from them.”1

This is Husayn’s address to the people on the day of Ashura. It is a strange speech which he gave at that critical hour before they drew their swords on him. This address carries boundless grief on account of those people who drew their swords against the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God, (S). I will talk on a number of points regarding this speech.

1- “You Have Drawn The Sword With Which We Armed You, Against Us.”

With respect to any struggle people fall into three groups: The first and the second are the opposing parties, while the third are mere observers who stay behind without supporting the truth. This group makes up a wide cross section of society.

The first and second groups bear the price of the struggle, that is, hands and heads will have to fall. This equally involves both the contesting parties and is not specific to the party of truth or falsehood. This is the norm of God Most High with regard to contests. God Almighty says:

“If you are suffering they are also suffering like you, but you expect from God what they do not expect.” 2

He also said:"If a wound afflicts you, a like wound has already afflicted those people; and We make such vicissitudes rotate among mankind…” 3

The party of truth is distinguished in the contest by God’s help and support and the victory He grants them. Indeed God has promised them that. God Most High says:"If you help God, He will help you and make your feet steady” 4 and"God has ordained: ‘I shall surely prevail, I and my apostles.” 5

This is what the believers expect from God when they are engaged in a contest. This expectation assures the hearts of the believers of divine support on the battlefield, a support which will ensure the outcome of the conflict in their favour. The foregoing analysis pertains to the two warring parties. The third group is a very complex one that can easily slip towards the side of falsehood as it is susceptible to enemy influence.

These are the people whom Husayn (as) addressed on the day of Ashura. They had sheathed their swords during the times of Ali (as) and al-Hasan (as). They had abandoned Ali (as) in Siffin and after that al-Hasan (as) till he had to compromise with Mu’awiya in order to save what remained of his father’s partisans. When these people put down their arms and forsook Ali (as) and al-Hasan (as), Mu’awiya drew them and after him, on the day of Ashura, Yazid did the same.

They did not lay down arms for long because the field of struggle abhors those sitting on the fence. He who does not side with truth on the field of contest and prefers safety over trouble of battle will undoubtedly side with falsehood very soon. The stand of the defenders of truth is firm and secure, and beyond the reach of the enemy, but those who stand on the fence easily drift towards the enemy side. They are defenseless and within easy reach of the enemy who can allure them to join the bandwagon, or terrorize and force them to side with falsehood.

Because of this, the positions people take on the field of conflict boil down to two: either they stand with truth in terms of loyalty and denouncement or they stand with falsehood in a like manner. These were the people Husayn (as) was addressing at Karbala. They had sheathed their swords and betrayed his father and brother before and were drawing them on him in Karbala. So he said to them: ‘You have drawn the sword with which we armed you against us.’

The sword denotes power. Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs were an isolated, weak nation living in the desert with neither power nor wealth. Islam bestowed on them power and wealth, made them bearers of the message of monotheism and conquered the world for them, thus making them lords and rulers over the world. Syria was then the seat of this power, which Islam had brought to the Arabs, and it used it to exercise political and military influence over large parts of Asia and Africa.

To these people, Husayn (as) spoke on the day of Ashura at Karbala, saying:

“God has guided you through my grandfather the Messenger of God (S) and, through him, provided you with this vast control that stretches over the earth. He has made you leaders and lords in the world. Therefore, this power and sword is ours although it is now in your hands. However, you have forsaken my father and brother before; you sheathed your swords and abandoned them then. And here you are today drawing the sword, which the Messenger of God (S) placed in your hands, to fight the son of his daughter.

It would have been more becoming of you to have fought Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan with this sword before, in support of my father and brother, and today, Yazid ibn Mu’awiya in my support … for they have left the tradition (sunnah ) of God’s Messenger and we tried to bring them back to the straight path but they did not return to it.”

2- ‘And You Ignited The Fire Which We Kindled Against Our Enemy And Your Enemy, Against Us.’

What was this fire that Husayn spoke about on the day of Ashura?

Who ignited it?

Where did he ignite it?

This fire was the great explosion of light that took place in the Arabian Peninsula. It sent to mankind a radiance that enlightened the hearts and minds of men from the east to the west. With this light, which entered every house, God removed the darkness of ignorance from mankind. This light turned into faith, sincerity, service, certainty, values, sacrifice, prayer and supplication, schools for the dissemination of knowledge and mosques for

worship that soon spread all over the world. It also emerged as uprisings and movements of the oppressed against the oppressors. On the other hand, this fire eliminated the thrones of the tyrants in Persia, Byzantine and Egypt. It also broke away the fetters and shackles from the hands and feet of men, and set them free from the grip of the oppressors.

The Messenger of God (S) ignited this fire in the Arabian peninsula and it was barely fifty years after its kindling that it illuminated the globe from east to west. The Messenger of God, (S) did not select a specific class for this call. In fact he released the dormant forces of innate nature and reason from the souls of those Arabs who answered his call. He made them a great force that vanquished the armies of Persia and Byzantium, and swept away the thrones of Chosroe and Caesar.

This action of the Messenger of God (S) was exactly like the work of an engineer when he produces light and heat from a cold dark rock; or the way a cold dark piece of wood gives us light and heat when it comes into contact with fire. He produced, out of them, paragons of righteousness and piety, strength and resistance, faith and submission to God, who were able to propagate this mission all over the world. They became lords and leaders of humanity after having lived in isolation from civilization in a plantless desert region.

In no more than fifty years from the death of the Messenger of God (S), the people burnt the house of his daughter. They set fire to Fatima’s (as) door in Medina, and later to the tents of his household in Karbala.

How cruelly they disregarded the rights of the Prophet’s family!

How ungratefully they repaid the Messenger of God (S) for his favours!

How regrettable the conduct of the servants!!

And God Most High clearly expressed His Wish to them:

"Say, ‘I do not ask of you any reward for it except affection and respect for [my] kith and kin.’ 6

3- “You Have Joined Hands With The Forces Of Your Enemies Against Your Allies.”

This is the second act of apostasy, which is worse than the first. The Imam (as) pointed out to the first when he said: ‘you have drawn the sword which we armed you with, against us.’ When the people reneged the first time, the swords shifted from the side of the Household of the Messenger of God (S) to the side of their opponents and enemies. This fact has been precisely described by al-Farazdaq when he met Husayn (as) on the way to Iraq. He said to the Imam (as): “Their hearts are with you but their swords are against you.”7 This is a perfect description of the psychological and political condition of the people at that time. Indeed their hearts were with Husayn (as) until then although their political inclinations were in favour of the Umayyads. This was the beginning, and it constituted the first act of perfidy.

The normal situation is that the hearts and swords should converge on the side of the truth, but if the heart and the swords disagree, this is the first step towards apostasy. The second step is when the two are agreed on being

hostile to, and fighting the Prophet’s Household (as.). This is the situation about which the Imam (as) is informing us in this statement:

“You have joined hands with the forces of your enemies against your allies.”

The term al-ilb, which the Imam used, denotes rallying or joining hands with a common enemy and needs some explanation. A nation (ummah) is a group of people who are united by a common loyalty and a common thing which they repudiate. This is the soundest and most precise definition ofummah (nation).

The Muslim nation is united by loyalty to God, His Messenger (S) and the Imams (as) of the believers."Your guardian is only God, his Apostle and the faithful who maintain prayer and give the zakat while bowing down [in rukuh].” 8

He who accepts this guardianship is part of this nation and he who rejects it or part of it does not belong to this nation. Similarly, this nation has a common position of repudiating the rebellious forces oftaghut which God Almighty has ordered us to disbelieve in, and the idolaters. So he who repudiates these two is a member of this nation and he who does not is not its member."Worship God and keep away from the Rebel” 9

Thus, on the day of Ashura, The Imam (as) said to them: A repudiation of God’s enemies and a common hostility towards them used to unite us. We also shared a common loyalty towards God’s friends. But today “you have joined the forces of your enemies against your allies”, exactly the opposite of what should have been the case. You should have united with your allies against your enemies. This is the second act of apostasy.

In fact, this was the condition of the people whom Husayn (as) addressed on Ashura. This showed the change-over between the two poles of love and hate, loyalty and repudiation, and it is the highest form of volte-face in the human personality.

4- “They Have Not Established Any Justice Among You, Nor Do You Expect Any Good From Them.”

The Imam (as) is saying that their hearts have turned from guidance to misguidance, from God’s friends to His enemies. They have become loyal to those that deserved repudiation, while the Umayyads have not changed their former position: “they have not established any justice among you.” The Umayyads are still committing injustice as they did before, still steeped in oppression and deviation.

No change had taken place in the stand of the Umayyads; the only thing that happened was a volte-face of hearts from the axis of loyalty to that of repudiation and from repudiation to that of (a new) alliance, for the people had shifted their alliance from theAhl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s household) to the Umayyads without there being any change in theAhl al-Bayt (as) from the position of guidance and righteousness, or in the Umayyads from their deviation and oppression.

“Nor do you expect any good from them”

That change of hearts was not prompted by any transformation in the Umayyads from unjust rulers to justice-loving ones, nor was it because the

people expected the Umayyads to treat them with justice. Therefore, the people were not deceived by the Umayyads when they gave them their loyalty and fought their antagonists. What then prompted the people to change over from the family of God’s Messenger (S) to the family of Umayyah? The reason was that the Umayyads had subdued them with terror or enticement. There is a difference between deception and degradation. One who is deceived by his enemy loves his enemy, is loyal to him and fights his enemy’s enemy out of mistake. This is a weakness in terms of awareness and knowledge but not a debasement. But he who allies himself with his enemy and supports him with his arms and wealth, and then gives him his heart knowing that he is his enemy abases himself and becomes contemptible.

Nations have always been subdued and degraded either by force and terror or by money. The Umayyads used both methods: debasement with force and terror and debasement with money and power. Although they used enticements, propaganda and deception, their excessive oppression, luxury and sinful style of life was too prominent to be lost on anyone.

5- “Woe To You! Are You Heading Towards These People And Forsaking Us?

This is the most pathetic volte-face in man’s life: he turns against himself by loving his enemy and hating his friend. A human being loves and hates; loves his friends and hates his enemies. When one forgets oneself, he forgets who he should love and who he should hate and above all, love and hate change places for him so that he now loves his enemy and hates his friends! This is the condition with which God punishes those who forget Him; He makes them forget themselves"…who forgot God so he makes them forget their own souls.” 10

The people Husayn (as) addressed on the day of Ashura were among those who forgot God so He made them forget themselves, forgot who they loved and hated. They loved the Umayyads who they were supposed to be hostile to because they perpetrated tyranny, sin and ungodliness; and they fought their friends and allies whom God had commanded the Muslims to love and obey, as recorded in the definitive (muhkamat) verses of His book.11 I cannot imagine the extent of pain that afflicted the Imam’s heart as depicted by this speech. A pain that stems from his compassion for them with regard to the level of misery they had reached. This pain was not because the Imam had lost their support in his tribulation.

6- “O Slaves Of (This) Nation And Strangers!”

This is the trait of slaves. Slaves must be loyal to whoever buys them. There is no permanent principle for their loyalty. He who buys them from the slave market deserves their loyalty, whether they like or hate him. Therefore their loyalty changes hands instantly from one master to the new master who pays their price to the old one and the latter hands over the whip to the former.

In an instant, the slaves forget their old love and loyalty and become faithful to their new master and new loyalty. People’s loyalty is to their parties, in ease or difficulty and in defeat or victory, unlike those who are

strangers to the parties, for their loyalty is always for the victorious whether they are in the right or not. This is the situation with floating political alliances; they carry dangerous psychological implications that depict a lack of principles and values. Also this attitude shows complete subordination to the one with the upper hand and a complete abandoning of the self and values.

7- “Away With You, O Slaves Of The Nation And Strangers To The Parties!”

Here the Imam (as) is praying for their being distanced from the mercy of God. This is because God’s mercy descends on man at different stations in man’s life. When one distances himself from these points he removes himself from God’s mercy. This is God’s norm of treating His servants so let us ponder on it. There is a reciprocal relationship between the descending mercy of God and the points at which it descends.

This descending mercy activates the places it descends upon. When rain falls on a land it becomes green, blossoms, ripens and bears fruit. This is what the descending mercy does to its place of descent. The place of mercy also seeks its place of descent and does not come down on a place unless it deserves the descent of mercy.

This deserving is to seek God’s mercy in the existential sense by having the potential to receive it, and this is necessary for mercy to descend. On the other hand, rejecting God’s mercy pushes it aside and makes it remote. God’s mercy is continuously descending although there are factors that facilitate its reception, just as there are factors that bring about its rejection.

Ponder over the prayer of the righteous servant of God, Noah (as) against his people:“And Noah said: ‘My Lord! Do not leave on the earth any inhabitant from amongst the faithless. If you leave them, they will lead your servants astray and will beget only vicious ingrates.”(Qur’an-71:27) It is a strange prayer in which Noah (as) speaks of God’s norms of sending mercy and cutting it off. All their potential for receiving goodness had dried up and all readiness to seek mercy: “… and they will not beget any but vicious ingrates”. So, on what would God’s mercy descend?

Husayn (as) prays to God Most High against those people on the day of Ashura because their hearts have lost all the values, which are the points in their souls at which mercy descends. So there remained no place in their souls and lives on which divine mercy would alight. Thus he said: Away with you! O slaves of the nation.

8- “An Old Treachery That Was Part And Parcel Of Your Forefathers”

Just as good can be deep-rooted, evil can also be so. The roots of goodness reach out to innate nature, reason, conscience and the heart while those of evil are linked to selfish desires. When evil and selfish desires take root in the mind one loses all the sources of goodness that are in his soul. The foundations of goodness that are associated with his heart, conscience, reason and innate nature dwindle as well.

Heredity plays a part in establishing goodness or evil. I do not mean to say that the effect of heredity is inevitable but that it plays an important part.

Heredity enhances good and intensifies evil although not with coercion. This means that mankind falls into two groups: the good tree and the bad tree (lit. tree) and each one is a tree. A tree has roots and fruits and there are similarities in some aspects between the roots and fruits of a tree. The roots of a tree form its foundation, the fruits its derivatives while the trunk serves as the means of conveying the features from the roots to the fruits.

In like manner good and bad lines of mankind carry good and bad traits from ancestors to their offspring so that goodness or evil are deep-rooted in each of them. Consequently, these two sets of ancestors constitute two lines in human history: a rising line that moves upwards continuously and a falling line, continuous in descent. Nimrod’s family is on the descent and Abraham’s family on the ascent; the family of Moses is ascending and the family of Pharaoh descending.

The law of heredity enhances this ascent and descent. It does not only convey the features of good and evil from forefathers to offspring but also refines them and sorts out evil from good and vice versa. As time goes on, the divergence between these two families (of good and evil) widens until a time is reached when the members of the evil family become devoid of goodness and its spring dries up from their souls. At that point divine punishment descends on them since they no longer deserve mercy.

This is what happened at the time of Noah (as) and it could happen at any other time. Then the bad family comes to an end and falls, and a new circle of history will begin. Surely, the law of heredity carries good and bad traits from generation to generation and promotes both the good and the bad together. It is this law that Imam Husayn (as) was hinting at when he said:

“Certainly, I swear by God that yours is an old treachery which has become part and parcel of your forefathers and which the offspring among you have strengthened. So you are the worst fruits: an eye sore to the viewer and an easy morsel for the usurper.”

The Imam (as) meant to say that treachery and wickedness was deep-rooted in them. It first reared its head on the day of Siffin, after which sons inherited it from their fathers. It took root first with their forefathers and gained strength and blossomed at the hands of the offspring among those present.

Therefore, they are the worst fruit of the bad tree. We must add that the inheritance we are discussing here is that of values and behaviour and it does not apply to biological inheritance. The law of biological inheritance in plants, animals and humans does not necessarily apply to that of values, thoughts and behaviour. The two laws can be completely different as in the case of Noah's son.

The Qur'an gives a precise description of him saying:"Indeed he is a [personification of] unrighteous conduct" ,12 although he was among the offspring of Noah (as) who was a leader of the righteous. This difference came from the determining factor in biological inheritance that does not apply to the inheritance of actions and values, which follow will and choice.

Notes

1. - Sayyid Ibn Tawus’s Al-Luhuf fi Qatla al-Tufuf pg: 58.

2. - Qur’an Ch: 4, Vs: 104.

3. - Qur’an, Ch: 3, Vs: 140.

4. - Qur’an Ch: 47, Vs: 7

5. - Qur’an Ch: 58, Vs: 21.

6. - Qur’an Ch: 42, Vs: 23.

7. - Sheikh al-Sharifi’s Kalimat Imam al-Al-Husayn (a.s) pg. 370.

8. - Qur’an Ch: 5, Vs: 55.

9. - Qur’an Ch: 16, Vs: 36.

10. - Qur’an Ch: 59, Vs: 19.

11. - “Say, ‘I do not ask you any reward for it except the affection for [my] relatives’ – Qur’an Ch: 42 Vs: 23. “Your guardian is only God, His Apostle, and the faithful who maintain the prayer and give the zakat while bowing down” Qur’an Ch: 5, Vs: 55.

12. - Qur'an Ch: 11 vs: 46.