Differences Between Shura (Consultation) in Islam and Democracy
As noted earlier, according to the general understanding of democracy, a parliament can be established to represent all the people. However, such a form of parliament is possible only in very small countries. Therefore, to address this difficulty, they departed from the original framework of democracy and established a parliament to represent the people. In reality, this is the final practical solution adopted by democracy; without a parliament, democracy would have little practical meaning. In this way, democracy has developed into a fixed system and adopted a specific institutional structure. Although this system may not readily adapt to the speed and changing demands of time, abandoning it from the political sphere appears to be difficult.
In Islam, the principle of Shura is likewise considered essential, regardless of time, place, or circumstances. This principle is applied in all circumstances in an appropriate manner. The fundamental differences between Islam and democracy concerning Shura can be summarized as follows:
Decision-Making in Military Affairs
In Islam, consultation in military matters is conducted with advisers, but the final decision rests with the commander. In contrast, democracy makes decisions on the basis of majority vote, a method that, in practical terms, cannot be fully applied within a military organization.
Sharia Restrictions
In Islam, consultation is not conducted in matters where the ruling of Sharia is clear. In other words, when there is an explicit religious ruling on a matter, consultation is not required. In democracy, however, there is no comparable restriction on parliamentary deliberation, and parliament may vote even on matters concerning which Sharia has established a clear ruling and may make decisions contrary to it.
Qualifications of Shura Members
In Islam, members of the Shura must possess specific qualifications and characteristics, as explained earlier. In democracy, however, anyone elected by the people may become a member of parliament, regardless of his or her beliefs or views.
Consultation with Specialists
The purpose of Shura in Islam is to arrive at a correct opinion; therefore, specialists in the relevant field should be consulted on each subject. In democracy, this requirement is not necessarily applied to the same degree or according to the same standard.
Removal of Shura Members
In Islam, the removal of members of the Shura is carried out according to specific principles and criteria, whereas in democracy the relevant conditions differ.
Parliamentary Immunity
Members of the Islamic Shura do not possess special judicial immunity and are required to comply with Islamic rulings. If they violate these rulings, they may be held responsible. In democracy, however, some members of parliament enjoy parliamentary immunity.
Legitimacy of the Shura
The Islamic Shura is based on qualifications recognized as valid by Sharia. In democracy, the criterion is popular election, even if those elected do not possess the qualifications required by Sharia. In a democratic system, adherence to Islam or the religion of an elected person is not a condition. In Islam, however, the Shura is described as being composed of Ahl al-Hall wa al-Aqd and the qualified figures of the Ummah, namely those who possess knowledge, expertise, and a high level of understanding, such as scholars and leaders who implement Sharia, as well as specialists in political, social, judicial, and administrative affairs.
Is Shura Obligatory or Optional?
There is disagreement concerning whether Shura is obligatory or optional. Some scholars consider it obligatory, while others regard it as optional.
There is also disagreement regarding the effect of the Shura’s decision. Some scholars believe that the majority opinion is binding and that the Imam must follow it. According to this view, once the majority opinion has been established, the Imam may not follow his own opinion or that of the minority. This understanding is derived from the position that Shura is obligatory.
Others maintain that Shura is advisory in nature; that is, the council clarifies the issue for the decision-maker and presents the different opinions, while the final decision remains with the Imam on the basis of the consultation. According to this view, the Imam is not necessarily required to act according to the majority opinion.
Scholarly Views on Whether Shura Is Binding
This issue was discussed in detail in the previous sections, but it can be summarized as follows:
The First View
Some scholars believe that it is obligatory for the ruler to act according to the opinion of the Shura. Their evidence is the following verse of the Quran: «فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ» [Al Imran: 159] Translation: “Then, when you have made a decision, put your trust in Allah (SWT). Surely Allah loves those who trust in Him.”
The commentators have regarded this verse as evidence for the necessity of Shura and have interpreted the word “azm” (resolve or determination) as meaning following the opinion of the majority.
Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ali (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was asked about the meaning of “azm,” and he replied, “It means consulting people of sound judgment and acting according to their opinion.” [1]
It is also narrated from Khalid ibn Madan and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Husain (RA) that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Resolve means consulting people of sound judgment and acting according to their opinion.”
Dr. Wahbah al-Zuhayli, after an extensive discussion, states, “In my view, it is necessary for every ruler to act according to the opinion of the Shura in relevant matters so that affairs may proceed on the basis of wisdom and public interest and the monopolization of opinion may be prevented, because the Islamic system is founded upon Shura and the Companions also practiced it.” [2]
He further explains that if the ruler is able to convince the Shura of his position, his opinion may then be adopted, as in the case of Abu Bakr regarding the apostasy issue and the compilation of the Quran and Umar regarding the distribution of the lands of Iraq.
In contrast, it has been argued that if acting according to the opinion of the Shura were obligatory upon the Imam, this would conflict with a number of established religious principles and legal rules, such as the prohibition of rebellion against a Muslim ruler unless clear disbelief is manifested, as well as with numerous narrations concerning obedience to the Imam. According to this view, making the Shura’s opinion binding is also inconsistent with the position of the majority of Imams and jurists.
The Second View
Another group of scholars believes that acting according to the opinion of the Shura is not obligatory for the ruler but remains optional. They likewise use the same verse as evidence.
Qatadah (RA), commenting on this verse, says, “Allah commanded His Prophet to place his trust in Allah alone after making a decision, rather than relying upon the opinions of others.” [3]
This view relies mainly on the conduct of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, in which they sometimes made decisions contrary to the opinion of the Shura, such as:
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
Abu Bakr’s decision to fight the apostates
The dispatch of the army of Usamah
Some of Umar’s decisions concerning the distribution of property
Some of Usman’s decisions in dealing with rumors
Ali’s decisions to remove certain governors
Shaykh al-Islam Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani likewise holds that acting according to the opinion of the Shura is not binding upon the ruler. Rather, Shura serves to clarify the different views, while the final decision rests with the ruler.
He ultimately states that if the ruler is just, knowledgeable, and trustworthy, the final decision is entrusted to him; but if there is a fear of betrayal or misuse of authority, then the opinion of the Shura becomes binding. [4]
The Third View: The Position of Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (RA)
Some scholars have stated that the Prophet (PBUH) was commanded to consult regarding matters for which there was no explicit textual ruling.
Others have said that consultation was restricted to worldly matters.
Another group has held that even in religious matters, when no revelation had been revealed on a particular issue, the Prophet (PBUH) consulted his Companions. [5]
The Ruling After Consultation
The Quranic verses and hadiths indicate that the ruler should consult the members of the Shura regarding religious and worldly matters for which there is no explicit textual ruling. But what should he do after consultation?
Allamah Abu Bakr al-Jassas (RA) states that after consultation, the Prophet (PBUH) would express his own opinion and act according to his own Ijtihad. [6]
It therefore becomes clear that after consultation, the ruler has the discretion to act according to whichever opinion he considers to serve the public interest. In summary, consultation is not absolutely binding.
