Advancing Shūrā: A Social Agent for Democratization

ABSTRACT

This study is an analytical comparison between Islamic articulations of shūrā (consultation) and notions of representative democracy. It emphasizes various epistemic understandings of shūrā in light of qur’anic exegesis and historical precedents of consultative rule in Islam. In particular, it identifies shūrā as an agent for democratization in contrast to its more familiar manifestation as a top-down consultative system. This is examined together with the works of influential Muslim scholars from modernist, Islamist and pro-democratic backgrounds to elucidate what aspects of democracy they accept and/or reject. The article does not exhaustively analyze each scholar’s interpretation of democracy. Rather, it selects scholars from different historical epochs with distinctive theoretical positions on shūrā. Overall, the study finds shūrā remains largely under-utilized as a result of post-colonial discourses on Islam and authoritarian political systems in Muslim-majority countries. The article finally examines how shūrā can be better facilitated as a social agent to renew civil society and combat authoritarian rule.

KEYWORDS:

• Islam
• Muslim
• democracy
• shūrā
• consultation
• civil society

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Ihsan Yilmaz, A/Prof. Salih Yucel and Dr James Barry for their feedback on earlier versions of this article. I would also like to express my appreciation to Fereshta Nawabi for her incisive comments on the piece, as well as Vicki Snowdon and the editors of ICMR for proof reading my manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Kedourie (1992, 5–6) claims ideas of representation, popular suffrage and regulation of political institutions are ‘ … profoundly alien to the Muslim political tradition’.

2. For Lewis (1996, 55), no word in Arabic, Persian or Turkish equates to the English term ‘citizen’. Lewis, nonetheless, speaks favourably about qur’anic principles of consultation and Islam’s pluralistic legal tradition as potential stepping stones to democratization.

3. Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s (2000) English translation of the Qur’an is used throughout the article for qur’anic quotes.

4. Agent-orientated theories describe civil society, NGOs and other intermediaries as ‘agents’ and ‘live political actors’ to help the process of democratization.

5. Muhammad Hamidullah (1975, 8) contends: ‘In spite of strenuous search, I could not find any instance of the constitution of a country, as distinct from ordinary laws, reduced to writing, before the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad.’

6. The treaty of Hudaybiya was a ten-year ceasefire agreement that the Prophet signed with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca in 628 CE.

7. Sunni Hadiths (Ibn Mājah n.d., Vol 1. hadith 106; Ibn Ḥanbal 2012, 68, hadith 2997) cite ʿAlī’s endorsement of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar and his reluctance to ask the Prophet about the appointment of the next caliph since the Prophet was sick. Conversely, Shiʿi sources argue that ʿAlī was never given a legitimate opportunity to be elected after the Prophet’s death. They argue that the Prophet’s family, including ʿAlī, were preoccupied with the Prophet’s funeral arrangements and contest the date scheduled for the election meeting (al-Tabataba’i 1975, 41).

8. Ahmed al-Dawoody (2015, 282–283) notes that a minority of classical jurists developed methods of protest that would only become legitimate if they: (1) had already exhausted all peaceful means to stop a ruler from oppressing his people; and (2) the advantages of overthrowing a tyrant overweighed the dangers of removing him, presumably causing disorder.

9. This is referred to as ‘the invention of tradition’ in the literature and has been applied to Islamist groups. According to Mohammed Ayoob (2008, 2), the invention of tradition provides Islamists with the theoretical tools to romanticize Islam’s past without taking into consideration the social, cultural and political contexts and developments of Muslim societies.

10. See for example the contrast between the French principle of laïcité and the secularism practised in Britain and the United States.

11. For a detailed journalistic account of the political treatment of Khaled Abou Fadl in the United States and Egypt, see Foer (2002).

12. For historical background on Hizmet–AKP relations, see Tas (2017) and Kaya (2015).

13. Tensions between Gülen supporters and the Turkish government reached a new climax in 2016, following the attempted coup in Turkey, which Gülen supporters were subsequently accused of orchestrating. For information about the government crackdown on the Hizmet movement, see Hansen (2017) and Human Rights Watch (2017).