Shin dimokuradiyya ita ce siffar gwamnati mafi kyau? Wannan wani abu ne da Musulmi ya kamata ya yi tunani a kai sosai. Muna jin daga yanayin zamaninmu cewa dimokuradiyya ita ce mafi kyawun siffar gwamnati, mafi adalci a cikin gwamnatoci, amma wannan da'awa na iya haifar da shakka ga Musulmi. Me yasa? Domin dimokuradiyya ba abu ba ne da Alkur'ani da Sunnar Annabi ﷺ suka bayyana shi a fili.

Is democracy the ideal form of government? This is something that Muslims have to think about very carefully. We hear from our context in the modern day about how democracy is supposed to be the best form of government, the most just form of government, but this claim can create doubt for Muslims. Why? Because democracy is not something that is advocated explicitly within the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

نبي ﷺ bai kafa wata gwamnatin dimokuraɗiyya mai wakilci a Madina ba, kuma Khulafa'ur-Rashidun ba su kafa irin tsarin dimokuraɗiyya mai rassan gwamnati da sauransu ba. To idan wannan shi ne mafi kyawun tsarin mulki, to me ya sa Allah bai saukar da shi ba? Me ya sa ba ya cikin Shiryarwar Allah? Ta yaya mutane za su yi tunani da tsara wani tsarin mulki da ya fi wanda ya zo wa Annabi ﷺ a cikin Wahayi na ƙarshe? Yaya za mu magance irin wannan shakka? A ra'ayina, dole ne mu tambayi wata tambaya mai zurfi: Me ya sa wasu a yau suke ɗaukar dimokuraɗiyya a matsayin mafi kyawun tsarin mulki? Idan ka je duk wani darasi na gwamnati a makarantar firamare ko jami'a, abin da za ka ji shi ne cewa ɗaya daga cikin manyan sifofin dimokuraɗiyya da ke sa su fi adalci da kyau shi ne ra'ayin duba-da-daidaitawa (checks and balances). Menene duba-da-daidaitawa? Ra'ayin shi ne cewa ana raba iko tsakanin sassa daban-daban na gwamnati, kuma waɗannan sassa uku suna duba ikon juna, ta yadda babu wata ƙungiya ko mutum ɗaya da zai mallaki iko shi kaɗai, ya yi mulki ba tare da tsangwama ko hani ba a kan sauran al'umma. A Amurka, misali, akwai bangaren zartarwa, bangaren shari'a, da bangaren dokoki, wato Shugaban ƙasa, Majalisa, da Kotun Koli. Waɗannan sassa uku suna duba ikon juna, kuma wani ɗaya daga cikinsu ba zai iya yanke shawara kan wace doka ƙasa za ta bi ko wane yaƙi za a yi ba. Dukkan manyan shawarwarin ƙasa dole ne a yanke su bisa la'akari da sassa uku, ba wani ɓangare ɗaya yana yanke wa kowa hukunci ba. Wannan shi ne duba-da-daidaitawa, kuma a ka'ida ya yi kama da mai ma'ana sosai. A cikin Musulunci, duk da haka, muna da wannan ra'ayi na bincike da daidaita iko (checks and balances), amma binciken da daidaiton da ake samu a cikin Musulunci sun fi gaskiya da zahiri fiye da abin da nake ganin shi ne bincike da daidaiton karya ko na zahiri da ake samu a cikin dimokuraɗiyyar Yamma ta zamani. Bari in bayyana abin da nake nufi da haka.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not establish a representational democracy in Medina. The rightly guided caliphs did not establish a kind of democratic system with branches of government and so forth. So if this is the best form of government, then why was it not revealed by Allah? Why isn’t it a part of Divine Guidance? How could it be that human beings could theorize and conceive a form of government that is better than what came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the final revelation? How do we address this kind of doubt? Well, we have to, in my opinion, go and ask a very fundamental question: Why do some today consider democracy the best form of government? If you take any kind of government class within grade school or college, what you will hear is that one of the main features of democracies that make them superior and more just is the notion of checks and balances. What are checks and balances? The idea is that power is distributed across different branches within the government and these three branches check each other’s power so that no one group or one individual can monopolize power and exercise unfettered, unhindered authority over the rest of the nation. In the United States, for example, you have the Executive branch, the Judicial branch, and the Legislative branch, basically the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. These three branches check each other’s power and one single branch alone cannot make decisions about what laws the country should follow or what wars should be fought. All of these major national decisions have to be made in light of all three branches, not just one branch making decisions for everyone. This is checks and balances, and theoretically it seems to make a lot of sense. In Islam, however, we also have this notion of checks and balances, but the checks and balances that we find in Islam are much more real and tangible than what I consider to be fake or superficial checks and balances found within Western democracies in the modern day. Let me explain what I mean by this.

Idan muka duba gwamnatin Amurka ko gwamnatin kowace ƙasa mai dimokuraɗiyya ta Yamma, za mu ga cin hanci mai girma, inda masu neman tasiri da ƙungiyoyin siyasa ke sarrafa ɓangarorin gwamnati don amfanin kansu. Misali, a yanayin Amurka, kamfanonin inshorar lafiya suna yin lobbying a gaban Majalisa da Shugaban ƙasa, suna ƙoƙarin yin tasiri ga waɗannan ɓangarori da kuɗi don a yi dokokin da za su amfani kamfanonin inshora ta fuskar kuɗi. Wannan wani nau'i ne na cin hanci, domin waɗannan 'yan majalisa, Shugaban ƙasa, sanatoci da sauransu, ya kamata su wakilci muradun jama'a, amma saboda kuɗi, sai su ƙare suna wakiltar muradun kamfanonin da ke yi musu lobbying kuma suke biyansu. Kamar yadda tarihin Amurka ya nuna, abu ne mai sauƙi ƙungiyoyin masu muradu su yi lobbying da kuma yin tasiri a kan ɓangarorin gwamnati ta wannan hanya, kuma wannan yana da mummunan tasiri matuƙa. Shi ya sa muke ganin irin wannan zalunci a tarihin Amurka, misali, kisan kiyashin 'yan asalin Amurka, zaluntar Ba'amurkan asalin Afirka, aikace-aikacen ta'addanci kamar jefa bama-bamai a Hiroshima da Nagasaki, da sauransu. A baya-bayan nan, ku yi la'akari da mamayar Iraki, Afghanistan da Libya. Duk waɗannan laifuffuka sun faru ne yayin da ɓangarorin gwamnati duka suka yarda da juna. Saboda haka, wannan ra'ayin cewa samun ɓangarori uku yana hana zalunci, ko aƙalla yana rage shi, tarihi da kansa ya ruguza shi gaba ɗaya. Bayan haka, babu zalunci da ya fi kisan kiyashi girma, duk da haka ƙasashe masu mulkin dimokuraɗiyya marasa addini kamar Amurka sun kula da irin waɗannan laifuffuka, har ma sun ba su doka a cikin majalisunsu, bisa yarjejeniyar ɓangarorin gwamnati waɗanda ke tsare juna.

If we look at the US government or the government of any democratic Western nation, we find great corruption, where lobbyists and different political action groups manipulate the branches of government in their favor. For example, in the US context, health insurance companies lobby the Congress and the President as they are trying to influence these branches of government with money to make laws that will benefit the insurance companies financially. This is a type of corruption because these congressmen, the president, senators, et al., are supposed to represent the interests of the people, but because of money, they end up representing the interests of the corporations that are lobbying them and paying them. It is very easy, as we see throughout US history, for interest groups to lobby and influence the different branches of government in this way, and this has a major negative effect. And this is why we see so much injustice in the history of the United States, e.g., the genocide of the Native Americans, the oppression of African Americans, atrocities like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. More recently, consider the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. All of these crimes happened with the branches of government all in agreement. Thus, this idea that having three branches prevents injustice or, at least, mitigates it, is completely undermined by history itself. After all, not many injustices are greater than genocide, yet secular democracies like the US have overseen such crimes and even legislated them in their halls of power, by agreement of mutually checking branches of government.

Yanzu masu goyon bayan dimokuraɗiyya za su iya cewa ba a kamata a zargi dimokuraɗiyya kanta saboda waɗannan misalan tarihi ba, sai dai a ce "dimokuraɗiyya ta lalace." Suna jayayya cewa a yanayi mai kyau dimokuraɗiyya tana aiki, kuma, eh, akwai nau'o'in matsaloli da za su iya tasowa, amma waɗannan ba su da alaƙa ta asali da abin da dimokuraɗiyya take. Suna cewa, idan za mu iya samun yanayi mai kyau, kuma idan kawai mun aiwatar da wasu ƙarin dokokin yaƙi da cin hanci ko watakila dokokin yaƙi da matsin lamba na masu ba da shawara, to ba za mu sami irin waɗannan matsalolin ba.

Now democracy enthusiasts could say that these historical examples should not be blamed on democracy itself but rather “democracy gone wrong.” They argue that democracy in the ideal case works, and, yeah, there are all kinds of problems that can crop up, but those are not really essential to what democracy is. They argue that, if we could have an ideal situation and if we just implement a few more anti-corruption laws or maybe anti-lobbying laws, then we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems.

Ina so, wannan hujja ce ta gaba-gaba, kuma dole ne mu yi tsammanin ta, mu kuma ba da amsa a kanta. Amsar da na ke da ita ita ce: A'a, akwai matsala mai zurfi game da dimokuradiyya, domin dole ne mu tambayi: Bisa menene dokokin dimokuradiyya za su dogara?

This is a counter argument, so as critical thinkers, we have to anticipate this counter argument and give a response. My response (and maybe you can have a different response if you think about it) is: No, there is a fundamental problem here with democracy because we have to ask: What are the laws of a democracy going to be based on?

Idan za su dogara ne a kan ra'ayin jama'a da kuma mutanen da ke zaben wakilai a Majalisa ko Shugaban kasa, wato mutanen da za su aiwatar da dokoki bisa ga ra'ayin jama'a, to wa ya ce ra'ayin jama'a zai zama mai kyau a dabi'a? Wa ya ce ra'ayin jama'a zai kai ga abin da yake adalci da gaske? Me ya sa za mu dauka cewa taron mutane da ke zabe za su zabi abin da yake daidai a dabi'a? Ya fi kama da cewa mutane za su zabi bisa son kansu na kashin kai. Kuma me ya sa hakan zai kai ga dabi'a ko adalci? Ya kamata mu yi tsammanin akasin haka.

If they’re going to be based on popular opinion and people who are voting for representatives in Congress or the President, i.e., people who are going to implement laws based on popular opinion, then who says that popular opinion is going to be moral? Who says that popular opinion is going to arrive at what is truly just? Why would we assume that a mass of people voting would vote for what is actually morally correct? Seems more likely that people would vote based on individual self-interest, perhaps. And why would this lead to morality or justice? We would expect the exact opposite.

Beyond this question, we must also recognise the fact that it is very easy to manipulate a population, and we see this throughout American history and even to this day. If you look at the way that mass media, social media, and educational institutions are able to manipulate society at large, you can see that public opinion is no check on people's baser instincts. In fact, popular opinion can lead a nation quite astray in terms of justice and morality. The glaring truth here is that democracy cannot be a substitute for morality, and this is where religion is so important, and this is where Islam, as the religion of truth with true morality and God our Creator, Allah, sending guidance and sending rules on right and wrong and what is truly just, is so important. And that morality is what can really be a check on a government. If one has a standard, an objective standard of morality, then that can be used as a check to identify whether a government or a leader is making decisions that are good or bad, just or unjust. Such a standard is necessary. If you do not have that standard, as is the case with modern secular democracies, then there can be no check or balance. What we see today in the US, for example, is that all three branches of government will more or less have the same opinions on what they perceive as moral and just. It seems to always boil down to the popular view of right and wrong in wider society at the time. There is no independent standard to judge whether those views of morality are just or unjust, right or wrong, and so there is not really a check. Even though you have different branches of government, they can all collude. They can all be aligned, and there is not a true standard to hold against and to judge them by, and that is why it is so easy for secular liberal democracies to commit atrocities and to commit all kinds of crimes that we see throughout their histories. Lokacin da muka duba tarihin Musulunci, mun ga cewa lamarin ba haka yake ba, domin ma'aunin ɗabi'a na zahiri shi ne shari'ar Musulunci. Waɗanda suke tsare shari'ar Musulunci da wannan ma'auni na ɗabi'a na zahiri su ne malaman addini (ulama), kuma malamai sun yi matuƙar taka-tsantsan don kada su shiga cikin harkokin sarki, amir, ko khalifa. Wannan saboda sun fahimci cewa mulki yana iya lalatar da mutum, kuma idan malami ya kusanci sarki sosai, to sarki zai iya yin tasiri a kansa, ya ɓatar da shi har ya yi hukunce-hukuncen addini da za su amfani sarki. Don haka wannan rabe-raben tsakanin malamai da sarki wani karfi ne mai ƙarfi na bincike da daidaito. Ƙarfi ne na gaske, ba kamar kawai bayyanar bincike da daidaito da ake gani a cikin tsarin dimokuradiyya ba. Kuma wannan nisantar tsakanin malamai da sarki abu ne da Annabi ﷺ ya bayyana a fili a cikin hadisin da aka ambata: "Duk wanda ya je ƙofofin mai mulki zai shiga cikin fitina. Bawa ba ya matsowa kusa da mai mulki sai dai ya yi nisa daga Allah."7

Beyond this question, we have to also recognize the fact that it is very easy to manipulate a population and we see this throughout American history and even to this day. If you look at the way that mass media, social media, and educational institutions are able to manipulate society at large, you can see that public opinion is no check on people’s baser instincts. In fact, popular opinion can lead a nation quite astray in terms of justice and morality. The glaring truth here is that democracy cannot be a substitute for morality, and this is where religion is so important, and this is where Islam—as the religion of truth with true morality and God our Creator, Allah, sending guidance, sending rules on right and wrong and what is truly just—is so important. And that morality is what can really be a check on a government. If one has a standard, an objective standard of morality, then that can be used as a check to basically identify whether a government or a leader is making decisions that are good or bad, just or unjust. Such a standard is necessary. If you do not have that standard, as is the case with modern secular democracies, then there can be no check or balance. What we see today in the US, for example, is that all three branches of government will more or less have the same opinions on what they perceive as moral and just. It seems to always boil down to the popular view of right and wrong in wider society at the time. There is no independent standard to judge whether those views of morality are just or unjust, right or wrong, and so there is not really a check. Even though you have different branches of government, they can all collude. They can be all aligned and there is not a true standard to hold against and to judge them by, and that is why it is so easy for secular liberal democracies to commit atrocities and to commit all kinds of crimes that we see throughout their histories. When we look at Islamic history, we see that this is not the case because the objective standard of morality is Islamic law. And who are the guardians of Islamic law and that objective standard of morality? It is the ulama (Islamic religious scholars), and the ulama were very careful not to involve themselves with the sultan, the amir, or the khalifa. This is because there is the recognition that power can corrupt and that if a scholar is too close to the sultan, then the sultan can negatively impact the scholar and corrupt the scholar to make religious rulings that benefit the sultan. So, this is a very strong check. It is a real check unlike the superficial facade of a check that we find within democratic systems. And this distance between the ulama and the sultan is something that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم explicitly mentions in the aforementioned hadith: “Whoever goes to the gates of the ruler will be tried with fitna. A servant does not move closer to the ruler except that he moves further away from Allah.”7

Bisa ga wannan hadisi da kuma misalai da dama daga rayuwar Annabi ﷺ da maganganunsa, da kuma aikin Khulafa'u Rashidun da mafi yawan malaman tarihi, malamai sun kammala cewa dole ne a sami babban nisa tsakanin sarki da malamai. Wannan wata hanya ce ta gaskiya ta daidaita iko da kuma sa ido, wadda ta dogara da ɗabi'a ta gaskiya. Gaskiya ne cewa sarki ko khalifa na iya yin cin hanci kuma yana iya yaudarar jama'a ko ya murɗe tattalin arziƙi don amfanin kansa, amma koyaushe akwai malami wanda zai tsawatar da hakan kuma ya ƙi amincewa da irin wannan cin hanci da cin zarafin iko.

Based on this hadith and many other examples from the life of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his statements as well as the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the majority of scholars of history, the ulama came to the conclusion that there needs to be a very big distance between the sultan and the ulama. This is a real check and balance based on real morality. While it is the case that the sultan or the khalifa can be corrupt and he can manipulate a population or manipulate an economy for his material gain, there is always the `alim (scholar) who is going to call that out and object to that kind of corruption and abuse of power.

Kuma mun ga misalai da yawa a tarihin Musulunci inda ake azabtar da malamai, a daure su, wani lokaci ma a kashe su saboda sun yi adawa da sarki. Wannan wani abu ne na musamman a tarihin Musulunci da kuma mulkin Musulunci, kuma yana nufin cewa babu wannan ra'ayin na "raba coci da gwamnati" a tunanin Musulunci. Ana tsammanin halifa ko sarki zai aiwatar da shari'ar Musulunci, kuma zai yi mulki bisa ɗabi'un Musulunci da fiqhu. Dukkan tsarin mulki an gina shi ne a kan haka, amma masu ɗaukar ma'auni na ɗabi'a mai manufa su ne mutanen da suka kasance daban kuma masu zaman kansu, watau malaman da ba sa shiga kai tsaye cikin harkokin sarki, don haka suna kare su daga tasirin mulki da kuɗi da ke lalatarwa. Wannan kariya ce ta gaskiya ga mulki. Kariya ce ta gaskiya daga cin hanci da rashawa. Kuma wannan wani abu ne da ba mu gani a cikin dimokuraɗiyyar boko.

And we see many examples of this within Islamic history where scholars were tortured, imprisoned, and sometimes even killed because they opposed the sultan. This is something that is very unique about Islamic history and Islamic governance, and it means that there is not this notion of “separation of church and state” within Islamic thought. The expectation was that the khalifa or the sultan is going to implement Islamic law, and he is going to rule according to Islamic ethics and jurisprudence. The entire system of governance is based on that, but the bearers of the objective standard of morality are people who remain separate and independent ,i.e., the ulama who are not involved directly with the sultan and, therefore, are shielded from the corrupting influence of power and money. That is a real check on power. That is a real check on corruption. And that is something that we do not see within secular democracies.

Akwai babban kuskure a cikin dimokuradiyyar sakulare, domin wa ya ce ra'ayin jama'a zai zama daidai? A mafi yawan lokuta, mulkin gungu yana da matuƙar kuskure. Mulkin gungu yana da matuƙar zalunci, kuma ko da an sanya iyaka ga abin da gungun zai iya yi, misali ta hanyar Dokar 'Yancin Ɗan Adam a cikin kundin tsarin mulki, har yanzu hakan tsari ne mai rauni kuma mara dogaro da za a gina mulki a kansa a matsayin ɗabi'a. Shi ya sa muke ganin sauye-sauye da yawa a abin da ake ɗauka a matsayin daidai da kuskure a tarihin Yammacin duniya. Ra'ayi game da ɗabi'a yana canzawa koyaushe, saboda ra'ayoyin jama'a suna canzawa koyaushe. Abin da ya bayyana a matsayin adalci da ma'ana a yau, na iya zama abin da ake ɗauka a matsayin mummunan zalunci gobe, da kuma akasin haka.

There is a fundamental flaw in secular democracies because who says that popular opinion is going to be right? In most cases, mob rule is very wrong. Mob rule is very unjust and even if you put limits on what the mob can do with, for example, a Bill of Rights within your constitution, that is still a very tenuous and unreliable system of morality to base governance on. And that is why we see so many changes in what is considered right and wrong within Western history. Opinion about morality is constantly shifting because popular views are constantly shifting. What might appear to be just and reasonable today might turn out to be considered an atrocity tomorrow, and vice versa.

Ya kamata mu, Musulmi, mu gane wannan kamar yadda yake. Ya kamata mu gane cewa muna da tsari mafi kyau a cikin addininmu. Eh, akwai yaƙe-yaƙe a tarihinmu, akwai shugabanni marasa adalci, har ma da munanan ayyuka. Amma kuma muna da ɗabi'a mai daidaito, wato Sharia, wadda ke ba mu wannan ginshiƙi da ke riƙe mu a matsayin Ummah a kan Hanya Madaidaiciya, tare da fahimtar menene adalci. Kuma wannan shiriya ce ta gaskiya daga Allah—babbar ni'ima da ya kamata mu gane, ba tare da jin ƙasƙanci ba, muna tunanin cewa wasu mutane, wasu al'ummomi da masanansu daga wani yanki na duniya sun fahimci adalci da ɗabi'a da mulki fiye da Allah, Alƙur'ani, da Annabi ﷺ.

As Muslims, we need to recognize this for what it is. We need to recognize that we have a better system within our tradition. Yes, we have wars in our history, we have corrupt leaders, and even atrocities. But we also have consistent morality, i.e., the Sharia, that provides that anchor that keeps us as an Ummah on the Straight Path while understanding what is justice. And that is true guidance from Allah—a big blessing that we have to recognize while not having an inferiority complex in thinking that other people, other nations and their philosophers from a particular part of the world have understood justice and morality and government better than Allah, the Quran, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.