AFTER THE DEATH of Ibrahim, Ismail and Ishaq, the people of Arabia had reverted to idolatry and continued for almost six centuries, that is, till the time of the birth of Prophet Mohammad. After the emergence of the Prophet, the religion turned into Islam, which in the literal sense means “reaching to God through submission”.

 

While the Prophet’s life is a model of excellence and a practical implementation of the guidelines given in the Holy Quran, his deeds, words and lifestyles are replete with examples, which make clear Islam is a democratic and secular religion.

 

However, this aspect remains grossly misunderstood, in particular at the grass roots’ level. The Prophet exercised democracy whenever it was time for decision-making — the verdict of the public was the word of the day. It was a man from the masses who proposed to the Prophet digging of a trench to defend the city of Mecca.

 

Actually, after the Prophet’s death, the Muslims have generally failed to understand the concept of guidance, secularism and democracy in Islam. This has been the case after the 13th century AD.

 

The Prophet’s death was marked by sectarian divisions in the Muslim community — the Shiites and the Sunnis. Both have had sharply contradictory views on almost everything related to religion, society and culture. Therefore both sects have different viewpoints on the concept of guidance, secularism and democracy in Islam.

 

In case of guidance, the Sunnis have persistently held that at the time of the last sermon, the Prophet did not directly name a successor. But the Shiites claim that the Prophet did indeed name a successor after him — Hadrat Ali as the first Imam.

 

One of the most vibrant and progressive Shiite community of all times is the Ismaili community. About their belief, Farhad Daftary writes in his article Intellectual Life among Ismailies: “The Imam Shii tradition, the common tradition among the Ismailies and the Twelvers or Ithna’Asharis was elaborated during the formative period of Shi’ism, lasting until the advent of the Abbasids in 750. This tradition culminated in the Shii doctrine of Imamate, formulated by Imam Jaffer AL-Sadiq and the coterie of the associates who included some of the foremost theologians of the time.”

 

Shiism during its early years had gone through a lot of pain. The martyrdom of Hadrat Ali, the event of Kerbala and the martyrdom of Hadrat Imam Hussein along with his trusted followers, Yazid’s (son of Moawwiyya) persecutions against Imam Zainul Abedin are highly essential and important events as they took place in the formative years of Shii Islam.

 

The Shiites in general and the Ismailies in particular recognized the true Imams of their times as “al-rasikhun fil-ilm (3:7)” or “those possessing firm knowledge” or “men of understanding”. Thus only those who were the “men of understanding” and possessed “firm knowledge” had the divine right to interpret and explain the Quran according to the changing circumstances and the need of the hour. According to Shii doctrines, the right to give spiritual and worldly guidance lies solely with the Imam of the time.

 

However, contradictory to all this, the Sunnis believed that the Prophet did not name his successor and thus the Sunnis “elected” their new leader, Islam’s first caliph Hadrat Abu Bakr through a by-election. This was the method used to elect the next two caliphs. After the death of Hadrat Ali, the understanding of various aspects of religion and the method of rule and governance underwent a marked change in the Sunni community. The advent of the Ummayyads had seen an upsurge in anti-Shii activities. The Ummayyads ruled with an iron fist for around 90th year. Their monarchic rule had done all what it could to impose its will and viewpoint in all corners of a vastly expanding Muslim empire and this had shunned down the forces of democracy and enlightenment. It is now accepted that the many problems the Ummayyad caliphate had faced, were related to the expansion of the Muslim empire. These problems were also reasons for its downfall. Non-Arabs, who were converting to Islam at a hefty rate, wanted their needs to be addressed and demands to be met. This was what the Ummayyads might not do.

 

Our analysis of Islamic history so far tells us that while Shiites were more organized and knowledgeable in approach, the Sunnis, courtesy Ummayyads were more stubborn in their approach and understanding regarding essential aspects of Islam, life, society and culture. Where the Ummayyads failed to bring harmony, democracy, development, secularism and intellectual growth to the Muslim masses, there the Abbassids did promote the study of religion and philosophy. But like the predecessors, the Abbasids, too, were grossly anti-Shiite and thus the Shiites continued to observe taqqiya or hiding.

 

The promotion of study of religion and philosophy however could not come to the aid of the masses, as the Abbasids were still hell-bent to enforce their own viewpoint on the masses and for doing so, they resorted to all sorts of means ranging from ruthless repression to mass murder. Those who disagreed were severely persecuted. It was this initial attitude of various Muslim administrations that made sure that the laws of democracy and secularism, which are very much a part of Islam, were grossly kept at bay. The Quran had repeatedly reinforced the fact that in religion there should be no compulsion, no repression.

 

At this point, what must be understood and acknowledged that the Ummayyads and Abbasids failed to understand what the Quran inscribes in the following words:

 

 

 

These two references from the Holy Quran give a correct indication that what Islam demands is a Muslim society which is secular in nature, that is, religion, caste, creed, etc has nothing to do with the government, decision-making, policy planning, etc. Also in a secular society, democracy and freedom (civil liberties) should be allowed to nourish liberal thinking, and the people, Muslim or non-Muslim, Arab or non Arab, shall have full right to practice and follow his or her religion and culture with freedom. This feature, according to the annals of history, seems to have been completely absent from the rule of the Ummayyads and Abbasids, but was the foundation of the Fatmid empire and government.

 

The follies committed during these formative years of the Sunni-dominated Muslim society have been grossly responsible for the inculcation of wrong habits and acute theocracy which we continue to see and face in the Muslim societies even today. Brutal dictatorships and monarchy continue to be at the helm of all affairs in many Muslim countries. In modern times, the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gamal Nasser in Egypt and Zia UL Haq in Pakistan provides ample evidence of this.

 

The tenth century had seen the rise of the Fatmids, the loyal Shiite Ismaili Imams who claimed and proved to be from the progeny of Hadrat Imam Ali, Hadrat Fatima and Hadrat Imam Hussein. The Fatmids had now been a huge challenge in the face of the Abbasids. Now, even the (formerly) heavily prosecuted Shiites had a mouthpiece to represent and speak for their version of Islam. Like the Abbasids-represented Sunni Islam, the Fatmids now spoke for the Shiite Islam. Here it must be mentioned that for the Shiites and Sunnis, the Quran, the religion and the Prophet’s guidance were essentially the same, but it was the difference in their way of approach and in their understanding of the inscribed guidance that has been chiefly responsible for the different interpretations that the scholars and religious clergy of both sects propose.

 

The days of the Fatmids were marked by the secular-cum-democratic method of governance. Religion was essentially not a concern of the state, although the Ismaili Fatmid Imams did spread the knowledge about Islam. What I mean to say here is that despite of their endeavours of expanding the vision and knowledge of Islam in general and Shiite Islam in particular, the masses were never forced to convert to Islam. Illustrious mosques were constructed, where religious lectures were regularly delivered by renowned scholars like Jaffar Bin Mansur UL Yamen and the famous Fatmid judge and jurist, AL-Qadi Nauman. The Fatmids however, did prove one sane point that like democracy and secularism, religion cannot be enforced on the people; people can be invited to accept religion. Islam was never spread by power of the sword as depicted by many Western scholars whose works seem to be extremely biased.

 

The Fatmids, whose rule started from the ancient cities of Raqqadda and Al-Mehdia, had extended to many other popular cities like Sajalmaasa and Al-Qairawwin. The Fatmids were rulers who truly believed in secularism and democracy and this was proven by the fact that at the peak of their rule, during the days of Fatmid caliph-Imam AL-Aziz, Jews were promoted to senior positions in the Health Ministry and hundreds of thousands of Turks had been enrolled into a formerly predominantly Arab military force and all this was done on the basis on merit and merit only!

 

The Fatmids invested openly in nurturing secular and democratic values, in public welfare, trade, intellectual growth, scientific and educational development, promotion of Shiite Islamic and Ismaili religious interpretation and theology, etc. In Short History of Ismailis, Farhad Daftary writes:

 

 
While the first of the two references is the one telling us that the Fatmids were the guardians of Shiite Islam as the Abbasids were to Sunni Islam, it is the second reference that is more prominent and thus speaks out for itself.

 

By now, it must be clearly understood that secularism was indeed the cornerstone policy of the Shiite Fatmids. Their serenely secular outlook did not only turn many of their enemies into allies, but also spurred development and progress in the fields of education, science, literature and medicine. Major scientists like AL-Rumi, Ibn-E-Sina, Ar-Razi , etc were the products of the Fatmid years. One another major event in Muslim history was the founding of the AL-Azhar university in Cairo. Over a period of a few years, the university became the centre of all research and intellectual activities. At this point, we must put forward a genuine question. Why did the preaching, developments, knowledge and learning of the Fatmid days not pass down to the generations that followed?

 

The answer is here. As the Fatmid days began to get numbered, a number of dynasties were about to flourish in Asia. All these were non-secular, non-Arab and utterly theocratic in nature. When the Turks, Seljuqs and other foreign powers attacked northern Africa, in their military adventures, they destroyed most of the educational resources such as books, manuals and hundreds of libraries (including those of Al-Azhar) were brutally brought down. Thus, where on one side the ideals and values which were so painstakingly nurtured by the Fatmids were brought to (an almost) sudden end, there theocracy, intolerance, terror, persecutions, and mass killings continued at an unprecedented rate during the days of Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, and even in the Ottoman days. It must be noted that while this was what was happening in the Arab lands, in South Asia, where the Mughals took over in 1525, there had been massive unnecessary investment into poetry, art, literature and acute politicization of virtually everything that came within the vicinity of the Mughals. By “unnecessary”, what is meant here is that due to Mughal obsession towards arts and architecture, other essential areas such as education, science and medicine and astrology were not given the attention that they deserved, and all this was at a time when Europe was experiencing the renaissance. From then onwards, in plain words, there has been no looking backwards for the West and no looking forward for the Muslims.

 

Actually, it has been the utterly theocratic, corrupt and intolerant mindset that prevailed once the Fatmids were gone, has easily seeped through Muslim societies and it is this type of an attitude that has well and truly taken Muslims away from democracy and secularism. This has been till the extent that today; even some sections of the masses are opposed to the freedom of thought and the free flow of liberal ideas in Muslim communities. In Bangladesh, Egypt and Indonesia, journalists who offer liberal views and dare to speak up against the government, whether right or wrong, are harassed, tormented, beaten or even jailed and then abused indefinitely. Here it must be emphasised that difference of opinion is a natural phenomena. Where two minds can think better than one, they usually do not think the same way because one man’s meat is another man’s poison. We may disagree with some one even to extreme levels, but however this does not mean that the right of free thinking can be taken away from the people. No. Generally speaking, a small but slightly influential section of the masses does not understand this fact, thus giving air to crimes and making sure that the society continues to prevail on the path of theocracy and non democracy.

 

 

However, in the course of the last five centuries, there have been some sane Muslim voices that encouraged the people to seek modern education and learn the English language. However, they were not only few in number, but also were they labelled as ‘traitors’ by the masses. One example in this case is Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. His works had largely gone unrecognised and unappreciated during his life time. A vast majority of the masses had trounced the Aligarh College and the Urdu society that he had found. This level of ignorance in the Muslim society of India in the eighteenth century speaks for itself. While Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was indeed a true hero who himself was educated from the Cambridge University, he was largely unable to put forward his messages and enlightened and moderate ideas to the masses. The Muslim masses in India at that time were highly unprepared for a democratic setup and Sir Syed knew that well and that is why (after considering the immaturity and backwardness) he advised the Muslims that to stay away from politics and concentrate on education. However, since a large section of the masses had denounced him already, they decided to do the otherwise. By joining the Congress, the Muslims of India once again exposed to the British and Hindus, their utter intolerance and non democratic outlook, and the Urdu-Hindi controversy is a valid evidence of that.

 

 

While there has been a lot of hue and cry about the promotion of democracy in the Muslim world, there a few basic things are grossly misunderstood. In Islam, as the Shiites maintain, there is no system of election, there is selection. According to this belief, the true Imams are the ones who are not elected by the people, but selected by GOD and are from the family of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). However, the Sunnis maintain a different line of thought. According to them, as the Prophet did not directly named a legatee, the leaders must be elected by a group of selected people or by a mass election. One reason that why Islamic concepts of democracy and secularism that did not prevail for more than four centuries after the Prophet’s death, is this difference of opinion and outlook presented above. However, here we must raise a question. How did the Shiites and Sunnis survive during the initial years of Islam? Actually, since the days of the Umayyad caliphate, the Shiites had to observe taqqiyya (they had to go undercover) because of the acute anti-Shiite attitude and policies of the Umayyads, thus there were clashes (generally) between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The case was nearly the same with the Abbasids. It was actually under the Fatimids that the Shiites got a chance to express themselves, secure themselves and prosper in life. However, in the Fatimid dominion, the Sunnis and even non-Muslims enjoyed great freedom and they also took part in intellectual, scientific and commercial activities. This was purely because of the secular outlook of the Fatimids.

 

One major concept that has been misunderstood is that secularism and democracy go hands in hands. A democratic society is one where there is complete freedom to the people for expression and thought. This is not possible where religion is interfering with politics and public affairs. Religion is something that is a matter of private concern only. It must not hamper someone’s public and social life. A seculo-democratic society is one where everything (publicly) takes place on the basis of merit only. One major case for a successful Muslim democracy in modern times is Turkey. A society which took over the guise of secularism since the defeat of the Ottomans in the First World War, the country has been a prime example of a working Muslim democracy in the twentieth century. Mustafa Kemal Attaturk had established democratic principles which are still worshipped by the people today. Turkey has a sizeable minority of the Kurds and the Jews. Turkey, after the First World War, had opened its gates for change and development and look where it is today! Turkey has a literacy rate of around ninety five percent and has truly shown the world a more moderate face of Islam. Today Turkey is a multi-cultural which even the critics of Islam admire.

 

There is a lot to learn from Turkey. The Muslim societies would only change if they open their gates and allow the influx of knowledge and learning. The Muslim societies would change if the wealth of the Muslim nations is adequately distributed amongst the masses. This and a lot more would be analysed in the second part of this essay.