Shūrà and Democracy: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Abstract

Since the beginning of the modern period -usually called the Renaissance (Nahd · a in Arabic) -prominent pre-Islamists and Islamists such as Jamāl al-Dīn al-Afghānī, Rashīd Rid · ā and Yūsuf alQarad · āwī have condemned the political oppression that prevails in much of the Muslim world and attributed its backwardness to that oppression. For many of those authors, the solution is the implementation of the old Arab institution of consultation (shūrà), which is mentioned in the Koran and has been associated with the Western parliamentary system. But were those Islamist authors just trying to encourage the adoption of Western-style democracy in Muslim lands by painting it with the brush of Islam? Can we really conceive shūrà as a form of democracy? And what about those who espouse shūrà but reject democracy? The present paper looks at that institution in its historical context and offers the opinion of several renowned contemporary Islamist thinkers on its prospects. Shūrà in Pre-Islamic ArabiaBefore Islam, shūrà was the process of consultation by which a tribal chief (the sheikh) received the advice of the tribe's most prominent members, who made up the shūrà council. The sheikh consulted them before taking decisions on intra-tribal conflicts, war and peace, treaties etc., and he also sat in session and listened to the grievances of regular members of the tribe. In general, he was appointed by the previous sheikh or, less often, elected by the shūrà council, and he could be deposed if he did not fulfil their expectations. In principle the appointment was for life, but the position was not hereditary.The shūrà council could be considered a primitive parliament, in that it elected and supervised the work of the executive power (the sheikh) as well as representing the different views within the tribe (although an effort was made to arrive at decisions by consensus). Council members usually had to be over 40 and enjoy a high social status. However, the council's decisions were not binding, and it did not have an enforcing body; therefore, the sheikh was free to ignore its advice, although this was not common. Shūrà at the Time of Prophet Muh · ammadThe Prophet of Islam, Muh · ammad (d. 632 A.D.), consulted his followers -and especially those closest to him, his Companions (S · ah · āba) -on topics the Koran did not provide an answer to. Presumably, among his objectives was to encourage Muslims to follow his example and to consult each other on matters of common concern after he was gone.Muh · ammad's most trusted advisors were Abū Bakr al-S · iddīq (d. 634 A.D.) and 'Umar ibn al-Khat · t · āb (d. 644 A.D.) -the first and second caliphs (successors) respectively. The Prophet used to say that he had two ministers from heaven and two from Earth: his heavenly ministers were the (arch)angels Jibrīl and Mikhā'īl; those from Earth, Abū Bakr and 'Umar. 1 But in spite of encouraging consultation, the Prophet did not develop a political system. Questions such as how to choose a successor, who should be consulted in case of

Islamic Political Parties in Contemporary Bangladesh: Paragons of Democratic Politics, or Rent-Seeking Parasites?

“…Islamic political parties in the modern world do not proceed from any single trend but rather are a novel set of entities, many of which were born as a response to European colonialism (Ahmad, 2009;Azmeh, 2016;Salih & El-Tom, 2009;Soage, 2014). In Bengal, especially East Bengal, the search for a Muslim political identity accelerated in the eighteenth century as a response to the myriad repressions accorded by the policies of the Raj and the actions of the Hindu landlords (Hossain, 2015, p. 375;Bose, 1986;Khan Z. R., 1985).…”

Contextualising and critically theorising corporate social responsibility reporting: Dynamics of the late Mubarak Era in Egypt

“…those affected by the decision (Lewis, 2001;Soage, 2014). M2 (compliance) pointed out that his bank practised 'Shura…[consultation]…between the board…and external investment bodies'.…”

Muslim reformist scholars’ arguments for democracy independent of religious justification

“…Accordingly, they have been reluctant to equate shura with democracy. As Soage (2014, 99) argues, these Islamists believe that “the former is superior to the latter in a number of ways, notably because…it has been sanctioned by divine law.” The shura council, for them, surpasses “Western parliamentarians in qualities like culture and virtue,” meaning that there is no need to reconcile democracy and shura (Soage 2014, 99). In this context, the renowned Egyptian Islamist thinker Sayyid Qutb (d.1966) identified shura as a necessary tool for governing a Muslim-majority community, but never widened the scope of shura to accommodate or embrace a system of governance based on a secular Western democracy.…”

“…In the course of this article, I focus on the notion of shura since it has become a major focus of debate and contestation amongst Islamic scholars who seek to promote democracy within an Islamic framework. While some studies have provided overviews of the debate among Muslim thinkers about the compatibility or incompatibility of shura and democracy (Shavit 2010; Saeed 2014, 148–159; Soage 2014; Ellethy 2015), 2 they have not fully discussed how this issue might be addressed from the perspective of some reformists such as Abu Zayd, Soroush, and Shabestari. In contrast with most previous scholarly work on the ideas of the aforementioned scholars (see Bennett 2005; Ghobadzadeh 2015; Kamrava 2008, 155–172; Bayat 2007, 91–96; Bayat 2013; Ghamari-Tabrizi 2008, 223–242; Dahlén 2003, Amirpur 2015, 35–65, 140–198; Shahibzadeh 2016, 111–151), this article seeks not only to frame their ideas as representative of a liberal turn among contemporary Muslim scholars, but to demonstrate how their political discourses are based on their theological-philosophical views, their methods of reading of the Qurʾan, and the distinctions they draw between the pre-modern and modern worldview.…”