Democracy, Socialism, and Islam
Democracy
"Since Islam encompasses all principles of justice, consultation (Shura), and sound human values, we see no need for the inclusion of the terms ‘socialism’ or ‘democracy’ in the constitution. It is sufficient to describe the constitution as Islamic”. “Unless, of course, we accuse Islam of deficiency, incompleteness, and lack of comprehensiveness - a thought that would never cross the mind of any Muslim."
With these words, the National Commission for the Complete Islamic Constitution concluded its memorandum. The commission rejects democracy - why? They explain in their memorandum: "Democracy has become a slogan bearing various and often contradictory meanings, reflecting the ideological divide between the communist East and the capitalist West. Communist states describe their systems as democratic, as do Western capitalist states, despite the ideological and philosophical differences between East and West. As for Muslims, Allah describes them thus: 'And thus We have made you a moderate nation, so that you will be witnesses over the people' (2:143)."
I am deeply certain that anyone who makes such a statement has no right to speak about democracy, nor does he have the right to speak about Islam. If he does speak, he is merely a man who speaks about God without knowledge. Such a person may also be someone who shows no reverence for God.
As for Islam, this verse cannot appropriately be cited in this context, because there is no middle ground between communism and Western capitalism; both are materialistic.
Western capitalism is responsible for distorting democracy in the West, while communism has distorted democracy in the East. Although the distortion of democracy in the West is significantly less severe than in the East, the key issue lies in the shared departure from spiritual values in both systems.
This spiritual deficit in both the East and the West renders Western civilization, in both its capitalist and communist forms, materialistic and incapable of accommodating the full potential of contemporary human being who seeks freedom and material prosperity as a means to achieve freedom, not as a substitute for it.
The Republican Party expressed this perspective in its book, The Challenge Facing the Arabs, on page 19:
Unifying humanity through thought - there is no other path - requires a civilization that grants preeminence to thought. However, this is not the case with contemporary Western civilization, neither in its capitalist Western branch nor its communist Eastern branch. In fact, modern Western civilization is fundamentally built on the denial of thought. It is a materialistic civilization in both its communist and capitalist forms. The difference between communism and capitalism is merely one of degree. It is particularly evident in communism’s disdain for thought and its suppression of intellectual freedom.
Western civilization has declared its bankruptcy and reached the limits of its evolutionary capacity. It has failed to accommodate the energy of contemporary humanity and its aspiration to unite socialism and democracy within a single governmental system. This is because modern individuals desire freedom and view socialism as their natural right and an essential means to achieve that freedom.
It is a grave misjudgment to ask individuals to relinquish their freedom in exchange for the rights guaranteed by socialism, as Marxist communism now demands. Similarly, it is unreasonable to expect them to achieve democratic freedom under a capitalist economic system that barely meets the needs of the body and sustenance, as Western capitalism proposes.
Thus, there is no middle ground between Western democracy and Marxist communism for Muslims to occupy, guided by the interpretation of this noble verse. Rather, this verse highlights the moderation of Muslims between the spiritual excess of Christians and the material excess of Jews. We have discussed this extensively in our book The Second Message of Islam, page 108. Readers are encouraged to refer to it for further detail.
As for democracy, it is a mistake to attribute its shortcomings to the failures of those who implement it or to the distortions introduced by those who misrepresent its essence. This commission has not conveyed to us the true essence of democracy; instead, it has chosen to dismiss it on the grounds that it has become, in their view, "a slogan bearing various and often contradictory meanings." Such a stance reflects nothing more than superficiality and intellectual bankruptcy.
Here, we shall not embark on an exhaustive exploration of the intrinsic meaning of democracy, as this is a subject we intend to address comprehensively in our forthcoming book, "Islam: Democratic and Socialist." However, we must first direct the reader to our earlier work, "The Leader of the Charter Front in the Balance of: 1- Western Culture and 2- Islam," specifically page 9 and subsequent pages, for a succinct yet sufficient understanding of democracy that meets their immediate needs.
For now, we can present a brief excerpt from that work:
The fundamental equality of all people is one of the most important manifestations of the democratic philosophy. People, in their essence, are the same regardless of differences in gender, color, language, religion, nationality, or class. There is something basic that unites them: intellect and the capacity for reasoning. People, from this perspective, are not merely members of a specific social group, economic class, or nationality, because (what fundamentally unites them stems from their shared attributes, not from what divides them.)
This is what we articulated there. Democracy, at its core, is a system of governance that upholds the dignity for every citizen. Human dignity is not defined by the mere satisfaction of material needs or provision of sustenance, but rather by the respect accorded to intellectual freedom. Indeed, what elevates humanity above mere animal existence is the capacity for thought.
It is stated in the Republican Party's book, The Second Message of Islam, on page 165:
The dignity of a human being arises from their unique capacity among living beings to learn and progress. Similarly, the dignity of democracy, as a system of governance, lies in its unparalleled ability to provide opportunities for individuals to attain their dignity and honor. Humans learn from their mistakes, which is the most effective method of education.
In a dictatorship, the government prevents individuals from experimenting or acting independently, thereby stifling their intellectual, emotional, and moral growth, all of which depend on practicing, taking responsibility for mistakes in speech and action, and learning from those mistakes. In contrast, democracy is built on the right to make mistakes. This does not mean mistakes for their own sake but rather acknowledges that freedom necessitates choosing among various courses of action. A person cannot truly be democratic without learning how to choose, make better choices, and continually correct the mistakes they inevitably make from time to time.
In essence, all behavior and the practice of freedom are a series of individual decisions in choosing and acting - or, in other words, in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action - under one condition: the individual bears the consequences of their mistakes in speech and action according to constitutional law. Democracy is the right to err. At the pinnacle of this definition is the statement of the Prophet, peace be upon him: ‘If you did not make mistakes and seek forgiveness, Allah would replace you with a people who would make mistakes, seek forgiveness, and He would forgive them.’
This is what we stated at the time, and we will delve further into the matter of democracy in our forthcoming book, Islam: Democratic and Socialist. However, what we have presented here is sufficient to demonstrate that democracy, as a way of life, aligns entirely with the Islamic approach.
If democracy has been distorted by communists, fascists, or Western capitalists, then we must reject the distortion wherever it comes from and uphold democracy in its authenticity and essence. We must defend it because it is the only human approach to governance that befits the honor and dignity of humankind.
Socialism
What did the commission say about socialism? They stated: "Likewise, the term 'socialism' bears so many contradictory meanings that its use often becomes a tool for distorting the principles of justice and inciting class warfare within society."
Here again, the commission failed to grasp the essence of socialism. They attributed to socialism the errors of its practitioners and the distortions it has undergone, just as they did with democracy. Socialism, at its core, is "economic democracy," just as democracy is "political socialism." The two are inseparable; they are like the wings of a bird. As a bird cannot soar with one wing, so too can society not rise without both democracy and socialism working together to uphold human dignity.
We have previously established that contemporary Western civilization has declared bankruptcy and is incapable of addressing the human potential of modern individuals, because it has failed to unite democracy and socialism within a single governance system. The modern individual desires freedom and sees socialism as their natural right and an essential means to achieve that freedom. It is misguided for them to be asked to relinquish their freedom in exchange for enjoying the rights guaranteed by socialism, as Marxist communism demands today, or to be asked to achieve democratic freedom under an economic system of capitalism that barely meets their basic needs, as Western capitalism proposes.
The commission’s statement, describing socialism as "inciting class warfare within society," indicates their belief that socialism is synonymous with Marxism. This is a common misconception. While it may be excusable for the average newspaper reader, it is unacceptable for individuals tasked with writing and guiding the public on critical matters such as the constitution. Marxism is merely one school of socialism with its strengths and weaknesses. It is inappropriate to attribute the flaws of Marxism to socialism as a whole.
Socialism, in its essence, simply means that all people are partners in the Earth’s resources, with no one holding a right over others while leaving some reliant on charity. Socialism emerged naturally from the long and bitter struggle between "the haves" and "the have-nots." Before the advent of scientific socialism, there was primitive socialism, which advocated for shared access to abundant resources that could not be monopolized. The Infallible [Prophet] referred to this when he said: "The people are partners in three things: water, pasture, and fire."
This prophetic teaching points to the necessity of socialism when resources are abundant, achieved through the utilization of natural and industrial resources. Scientific socialism builds on this foundation.
It is stated in the Republicans' book The Second Message of Islam, page 158, regarding socialism, that: "Scientific socialism, as envisioned by the Republicans, rests on two pillars simultaneously: the first is increasing production from sources of production, including minerals, agriculture, industry, and livestock. This is achieved through the use of machinery, science, and the enhancement of administrative and technical expertise.
The second pillar is the equitable distribution of wealth. In the socialist phase, this entails establishing both a maximum and a minimum income level. The minimum income must be guaranteed for all citizens, including children, the elderly, and those unable to produce. It should be sufficient to allow citizens to live at a standard that preserves their human dignity.
As for the maximum income, it is required that it not exceed the minimum income by many multiples, to prevent the creation of an upper class that would disdain marrying into the lower-income classes.
To increase production, it is necessary to prohibit the ownership of sources and means of production by a single individual or a small group of individuals in the form of a company, whether it is a production company or a distribution company. A citizen may only own private property such as a home, the garden surrounding it, the furniture inside, a car, and similar items that do not involve employing others in a way that exploits their labor to increase the owner’s income. Even within these narrow limits, individual ownership should not be absolute ownership of the object itself. Rather, it should be usufructuary ownership - ownership of the right to use and benefit from the object - while the object itself remains owned by God and, collectively, by the community as a whole.
As production increases, equitable distribution advances by reducing income disparities. The minimum guaranteed income is raised more significantly than the maximum cap, progressing toward absolute equality. Once this equality is achieved, through God’s grace and increased production, communism is realized - a state where resources are fully shared among all people. Communism differs from socialism in degree, with socialism serving as a transitional phase toward communism.
The Infallible exemplified communism at its peak when his teachings reflected the Quranic verse: "They ask you what they should spend. Say, 'The excess.'” (2:219). He interpreted “The excess” (al-’afw) as anything beyond his immediate needs.
He also embodied these principles among the Ash’aris, as he said: "The Ash’aris, when facing hardship or traveling, would gather their provisions on a cloth and share them equally. They are of me, and I am of them."
Another tradition reported by a companion states: "We were traveling with the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he said: 'Whoever has surplus wealth, let him give it to those without wealth. Whoever has surplus provisions, let him give it to those without provisions. Whoever has surplus mounts, let him give it to those without mounts. Whoever has surplus water, let him give it to those without water.' He continued enumerating until we thought no one had a right to surplus."
The increase in production is achieved through the use of machinery, scientific expertise, and efficient administration, based on a cooperative approach among productive citizens rather than through centralized state ownership.
As Republicans, when we speak of scientific socialism or communism in what we advocate, we do not mean the doctrine of Karl Marx, known as Marxist-Leninism. We are fully aware that Karl Marx’s socialism is not scientific. It is entangled in a fundamental and grave error, which constitutes the greatest obstacle to the triumph of socialism on earth. Socialism will not prevail unless this fundamental error is corrected.
We briefly addressed this error in our book The Challenge Facing Arabs, on page 14, and we plan to elaborate on it in our forthcoming book, Islam: Democratic and Socialist, which will be published soon, God willing.
