Liberal Islam for Liberal Democracy
By Luthfi Assyaukanie
Source: Melbourne, 23/11/2004
When discussing Islam and democracy, we are invariably asked the question, “Is Islam compatible with democracy?” This question deserves to be pulled apart and examined closely. We must then ask, “Which Islam and which democracy?”
If we speak of a conservative Islam and the Western liberal democracy, the answer is no, they are not compatible. Likewise, if we are thinking of a progressive Islam and a North Korean type of democracy, the answer is also no.
Islam is compatible with democracy only if both are liberal.
Liberal democracy is a political notion introduced by the Western political philosophy in the nineteenth century. The roots of liberal democracy could be traced to the early seventeenth century when rationalism and enlightenment began to spread over the intellectual tradition of the Europeans.
However, liberal democracy was not fully recognised until early in the nineteenth century, when Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and other political theorists “found reasons for believing that ‘one man, one vote’ would not be dangerous to property, or to the continuance of class-divided societies.” (Macpherson, C. B. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford, 1977, p. 10).
The basic teaching of liberal democracy lies in the conviction that people should have full freedom. It guarantees that all citizens are able to exercise their freedom in politics, economy, and other aspects of life. In a popular depiction by Norman Rockwell, the notable painter, freedom should cover four basic things: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.
The guarantee for freedom of speech is bounded in political freedom. In practice, liberal democracy allows all citizens to have equal vote to elect their best representative. Hence, liberal democracy is often called representative democracy.
Liberal democracy believes that the voice of people is supreme, since it substantiates the voice of God (vox populi vox dei). The ultimate political authority rests on the people’s consensus constituted in parliament. This is called people’s sovereignty.
In the modern discourse of Islamic political philosophy, political sovereignty raises a heated debate. Muslims have been divided into two big camps: those who support the idea of people’s sovereignty and those who reject it.
Liberal Muslims accept the concept of people’s sovereignty on the ground that Muslim is the vicegerent of God (khalifatullah) who can translate what God wants. God’s sovereignty would not be effectively understood unless it is practically transformed into human language and interest.
Illiberal Muslims, on the other hand, argue that God’s sovereignty cannot in anyway be replaced by human sovereignty. They argue that there are several things in religion which cannot be democratically discussed. For them, to challenge the idea of God’s sovereignty is tantamount to contravene the very fundamental doctrine of Islam.
The atmosphere of political freedom given by liberal democracy allows people from diverse background to participate in building a good government and society. Liberal democracy treats all people equally and gives them an equal opportunity to articulate their political as well as religious rights. This is the true spirit of the freedom of worship.
Islam is unquestionably supportive to the idea of freedom of worship. The Qur’an contains many verses advocating Muslims to respect other’s belief (Q.S. 109:6). Liberal Muslims set up their argument to justify the concept of freedom of worship on this very Qur’anic doctrine.
They believe that the freedom of worship does not only mean an endorsement for minorities to exercise their religious rights, but it also requires the conviction that non-Muslims have equal status in mission, creed, and goal.
Illiberal Muslims, on the other hand, look upon other religions from the Islamic classical distinction of community into ahl al-kitab (people of the book), dhimmi (the protected), and kafir (infidel). Although they might share with their fellow liberal Muslims in accepting the idea of freedom of worship, they would hardly accept the idea that non-Muslims are equal to them.
They firmly believe that Muslims are better, hence chosen by God, meanwhile adherents of other religions are only supplements. This kind of attitude would certainly be problematic if we put it in the political setting.
The four basic freedoms are generally aimed to protect the rights of people and ultimately to back up the idea of civil liberty. Civil liberty is relatively new concept in Islam. Classical Islamic political philosophy does not recognize it.
In the classical Islam, freedom is discussed in a metaphysical or theological framework. It is always colligated with the idea of predestination and never compared to the non-divine agents as we, the modern men, discuss it today.
Nevertheless, many Muslims extent the scope of Islamic discourse of freedom into the contemporary issues, including the issue of civil liberty. Liberal Muslims would accept the idea of civil liberty on the ground that man is born free and the keeping of freedom (hurriyyah) is part of the basic foundation of Islam.
In political theory, civil liberty is usually defined as “one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country.” Only the law which can serve citizens equally that can guarantee the basic individual rights. And this law must be built upon the spirit of non-partisan basis. Liberal Muslims would certainly accept this basic premise, since, for them, the law is a reflection of the community. There is no such thing as a perennial law which cannot be changed or modified.
Illiberal Muslims, on the other hand, would find it difficult accepting a law derived from popular consensus and not from divine one. For them, there is only one law which becomes altogether the source of law for all people. That is shariah. For them, shariah is the best and the most resourceful law for all mankind.
Liberal Muslims consider the application of shariah in a pluralist country as an encumbrance to the very basic of democracy. For them, shariah is merely a “way” as the term indicates the meaning. A way can be achieved rationally through the process of human deliberation. They believe that reason is also part of religion.
The future of liberal democracy lies in the future of liberal Islam. The more powerful liberal Islam prevails in a country, the greater prospects liberal democracy has. Conversely, the more illiberal Islam grows in a country, the more difficult it is for liberal democracy to develop.
Thus, the question is now not whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy, but rather how we can possibly grow and maintain the culture of liberal Islam.
10 December 2008, 07:00