是否民主是理想的政体？这是穆斯林必须非常审慎思考的问题。我们在当代的环境中常听到这样的说法：民主被认为是最好的政体，是最公正的政体。然而，这种说法可能会使穆斯林心生疑虑。为什么呢？因为民主并没有在《古兰经》和先知ﷺ的圣训中被明确提倡。

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.

先知穆罕默德ﷺ在麦地那并没有建立代议制民主。正统哈里发也没有建立那种设有各个政府分支等等的民主制度。那么，如果这是最好的政府形式，为什么真主没有启示它？为什么它不属于神圣的指引？人类怎么可能构想出一种比最后的启示降临给先知ﷺ的制度更好的政府形式？我们该如何回应这类怀疑？我认为，我们必须追问一个非常根本的问题：为什么今天有人认为民主是最好的政府形式？如果你在中小学或大学上任何一门政府课程，你会听到的是：使民主成为更优越、更公正的主要特征之一，是“制衡”的理念。什么是制衡？其理念是：权力分布在政府内的不同分支之中，这三个分支相互制约彼此的权力，使任何一个群体或个人都无法垄断权力，对全国行使不受约束、不受阻碍的权威。例如在美国，有行政、司法和立法三个分支，也就是总统、国会和最高法院。这三个分支相互制约彼此的权力，任何单一分支都不能单独决定国家应遵守什么法律或应发动什么战争。所有重大的国家决策都必须在三个分支共同考量之下作出，而不是由一个分支替所有人作决定。这就是制衡，从理论上看，它似乎非常合理。 在伊斯兰教中，我们同样有制衡的概念，但伊斯兰教中的制衡比我认为的现代西方民主制度中那些虚假或流于表面的制衡更加真实、更加切实可行。让我来解释我的意思。

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.

如果我们审视美国政府或任何民主西方国家的政府,会发现存在严重的腐败:游说者和各种政治行动团体通过operating 使政府各部门按其利益行事。例如就美国而言,健康保险公司游说国会和总统,试图用金钱影响这些政府部门,以制定使保险公司获利的法律。这是一种腐败,因为国会议员、总统、参议员等本应代表民众的利益,但因为金钱,他们最终代表的却是游说并向他们付钱的企业的利益。正如美国历史所表明的,利益集团以这种方式游说并影响政府各部门非常容易,而这带来了重大的负面影响。 这也正是为什么美国历史上充满了不公正,例如对美洲原住民的种族灭绝、对非裔美国人的压迫、广岛和长崎的轰炸等暴行。更近一些,看看对伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亚的入侵。所有这些罪行都是在政府各部门一致同意的情况下发生的。因此,那种认为三权分立能够防止或至少减轻不公正的观点,被历史本身彻底推翻了。毕竟,没有多少不公正比种族灭绝更严重,然而像美国这样的世俗民主国家却主导了此类罪行,并且通过相互制衡的政府各部门的一致同意,将其在权力殿堂中合法化。

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.

那么，民主的拥护者可能会说，这些历史事例不应归咎于民主本身，而应归咎于“走偏了的民主”。他们认为，民主在理想状态下是行得通的；的确，会出现各种各样的问题，但那些问题并不是民主的本质所在。他们主张，只要我们能达到理想的状况，再多制定几项反腐败法或反游说法，这类问题就不会出现。

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.

这是一个反驳论点，作为批判性思考者，我们必须预见到这一反驳并给出回应。我的回应（你也可以在思考之后给出不同的回应）是：不，民主存在一个根本性问题，因为我们必须追问：民主的法律将以什么为基础？

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?

如果这些法律要以大众意见为基础，而投票选出国会议员或总统的人，也就是将来会依据大众意见来执行法律的人，那么谁能保证大众意见就是道德的？谁能保证大众意见必然能得出真正的公正？我们凭什么认为一大群人投票时，会投出真正符合道德的选择？更可能的情况似乎是，人们会基于个人的私利来投票。那样的话，这又怎么会导向道德或公正？我们反而会预料到恰恰相反的结果。

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.

"除了这个问题之外，我们还必须认识到一个事实：操纵民众是非常容易的。纵观美国历史，直至今日，我们都能看到这一点。看看大众媒体、社交媒体和教育机构如何能够操纵整个社会，你就会发现，公众舆论并不能遏制人们较低劣的本能。事实上，民意可能在正义与道德方面把一个国家引向歧途。一个明显的事实是：民主不能取代道德，而这正是宗教如此重要之处，也是伊斯兰教如此重要之处。伊斯兰教是真理的宗教，拥有真正的道德，我们的创造者安拉降下指引，颁布关于善恶以及何为真正公正的准则。这种道德可以真正对政府起到制约作用。如果一个人拥有一套客观的道德标准，那么就可以用它来判断一个政府或领导人的决策是善是恶、是公正还是不公正。这样的标准是必要的。如果没有这样的标准，像现代世俗民主国家那样，就不存在任何制约与平衡。以今天的美国为例，我们看到三大政府分支在什么是道德和公正的问题上或多或少持有相同的看法。这些看法似乎总是归结为当时广大社会的流行道德观。没有一个独立的标准来判断这些道德观是否公正、是否正确，因此也就不存在真正的制约。即使设有不同的政府分支，它们仍可能相互勾结，彼此一致，而人们没有一个真正的标准去对照和评判它们。这正是世俗自由民主国家如此容易犯下暴行，以及在其历史中犯下各种罪行的原因。" 当我们审视伊斯兰历史时，会发现情况并非如此，因为道德的客观标准就是伊斯兰教法。那么，谁是伊斯兰教法以及这一道德客观标准的守护者呢？是乌拉马（伊斯兰宗教学者），而乌拉马非常谨慎，不与苏丹、埃米尔或哈里发过从甚密。这是因为人们认识到权力会腐化人心，如果学者与苏丹走得太近，苏丹就可能对学者产生负面影响，使学者腐化，作出有利于苏丹的宗教裁决。因此，这是一种非常有力的制衡。它是真正的制衡，不同于民主制度中那种流于表面的制衡假象。乌拉马与苏丹之间的这种距离，正是先知ﷺ在前面提到的那段圣训中明确提及的：“凡走到统治者门前的人，必将遭受迷惑（fitna）的考验。仆人每接近统治者一分，就远离真主一分。”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

根据这段圣训以及先知穆罕默德ﷺ生平中的许多其他例子，他的言论，四大哈里发的做法，以及大多数历史学者的见解，乌里玛得出结论：苏丹与乌里玛之间必须保持相当大的距离。这是一种基于真正道德的、真正的制衡机制。苏丹或哈里发可能会腐败，可能会操纵民众或经济以谋取物质利益，但总有学者（'alim）会站出来揭露这种腐败，反对这种滥用权力的行为。

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.

在伊斯兰历史上，我们可以看到许多这样的例子：学者因反对苏丹而遭受酷刑、监禁，有时甚至被处死。这是伊斯兰历史和伊斯兰治理中非常独特的一点，也意味着伊斯兰思想中并不存在“政教分离”的观念。人们期望哈里发或苏丹实施伊斯兰律法，依照伊斯兰伦理与教法治理国家。整个治理体系都建立在这一基础之上，而客观道德标准的守护者则是保持独立、不直接介入苏丹事务的乌来玛。正因为他们不与苏丹有直接的牵连，才得以免受权力与金钱的腐蚀。这是对权力的真正制约，也是对腐败的真正制约。而这一点，是我们在西方式的世俗民主制度中所看不到的。

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.

世俗民主制度存在一个根本缺陷:谁说大众的意见一定是对的?在大多数情况下,暴民统治是非常错误的。暴民统治极其不公正,即使你在宪法中用《权利法案》等条款限制民众可以做的事,这仍然是一个非常脆弱、不可靠的道德体系,不足以作为治理的基础。正因如此,我们在西方历史上看到了许多关于什么是对、什么是错的变化。道德观念不断演变,因为大众的观点也在不断变化。今天看来公正合理的事,明天可能被视为暴行;反之亦然。

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.

作为穆斯林，我们需要认清这一点。我们需要认识到，我们的传统中有一套更好的体系。是的，我们的历史上有战争，有腐败的统治者，甚至有暴行。但我们也拥有一以贯之的道德准则，即伊斯兰教法（Sharia），它为我们提供了一个稳固的依托，使我们作为一个乌玛（Ummah）始终行走在正道上，同时让我们understand什么是公正。这是来自真主的真正指引，是我们必须认识到的重大恩典。我们不应因此产生自卑感，以为其他民族、其他国家，以及来自世界某一地区的哲学家，对公正、道德和治理的理解，会胜过真主、《古兰经》和先知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.