Osman Ly, Mira Al-Bitar:
Democracy is based on the majority resulting from free elections, while Shura (consultation) rejects the majority because democracy is an imported principle unrelated to Islam, Few scholars believe the essence of democracy is Islamic due to their ignorance of it! Generally, the rejection of democracy is based on “sacred” texts claiming that the majority always stands on the side of falsehood and tyranny, The majority imposes the ruler and thus undermines the authority of “God,” as in the verses: “And if you obey most of those on earth, they will lead you astray from the path of God,” “And most of the people, even if you strive for it, will not believe,” “But most of the people do not know,” and “But most of the people do not believe,” etc. Therefore, in Islam, the opinion of the majority is not taken into account, In addition, there are matters that do not fall within the realm of electoral voting because they are constants that do not accept change unless the community changes and is no longer Muslim, Voting only pertains to matters of “ijtihad” (independent reasoning) or what is called “masalih mursalah” (public interest), such as electing the president, As for the religion of the president, it is not subject to voting, We do not know What does the exercise of the presidency have to do with the religion of the president himself?!
Religion does not rely on voting as a means of determining the right course of action, nor does it favor one opinion over another simply because the majority agrees with it, Rather, it considers the matter in itself: is it right or wrong? If it is right according to the texts and the position of jurisprudence, it is implemented even if it has only one vote, or even if no one agrees with it, Abu Bakr and Umar acted according to this system of consultation( shura), The Companions advised Abu Bakr not to fight the apostates and to make peace with the separatist, apostate tribes, He did not take the advice of the Companions and made the opposite decision to wage war on the apostates. Democracy is very far from consultation, Democracy operates according to the opinion of the majority, not according to the opinion of the circle close to the decision-maker, such as his friends and relatives.
Consultation (Shura) is not binding on the ruler, nor does it possess the tools to enforce it, nor the legislation to compel it, nor the institutions capable of doing so, Consultation is arbitrary and capricious, sometimes expanding like a tumor in a matter that was not intended for such expansion and is not in the ruler’s interest, as was the case with the Wars of Apostasy, The majority of those consulted saw no need for these wars, unlike Qaradawi recently, who believed that without the Wars of Apostasy, the religion would have been extinct. Why should the spread of religion be achieved through wars? Qaradawi emphasized their necessity—that is, the necessity of establishing the religion by the sword,We do not want to discuss whether consultation is part of Sharia or not, because the entire concept of Sharia is rejected in principle as it is harmful and without positive benefit, After 1440 years of attempts to implement Sharia, is there a state built on its foundations? Consultation is a pleasant practice among friends, but the matter was and remains as stated in the hadith: “Obedience to the ruler, provided it does not involve disobedience to God.” With the obedience that al-Julani commanded—”Obey me!”—there is no place for anything called democracy.
Islamic thinkers have linked the idea of Shura to democracy, Some of them rejected democracy and made Shura an alternative to it. Some of them, in their pursuit of renewal and modernity, tried to bring the two closer, Some of them called (Kozovo and Azerbaijan recently) to adopt secular democracy as a system of government and a good mechanism for participation, Then it was said by some that the distinction between Shura and democracy came from the perspective of diversity and not from the perspective of contradiction and hostility.
The concepts discussed, namely Shura and democracy, need to be understood, analyzed, and scrutinized, especially when some ignorant people consider Shura to be a possible alternative to democracy. It should be noted that an alternative must be equal to and identical to its replacement, and Shura is neither equal to nor identical to democracy for many reasons, some of which have been mentioned, such as democracy’s emphasis on implementing the will of the elected majority, while there is no popular election in Shura, and Shura’s decisions are not binding, Furthermore, democracy is a Western product of Roman-Greek origin with a Latin name and term. To say that Sharia is equal to, or even superior to, democracy means that the two terms are almost identical, and the validity of this identity is completely negated, There is no identity or even similarity, especially in terms of the results of its application!
There is a great deal of confusion regarding democracy, which Arab ignorance reduces to a verbal utterance regardless of its meaning, implications, content, substance, and intellectual and philosophical foundations, We are trying to prove the correspondence between Shura and democracy with astonishing simplicity, as if the words are without content, philosophy, history, results, experiences, and homeland, so that with that shameful arbitrary simplicity, confusion can be made between democracy and Shura!
The vocabulary, such as democracy as opposed to consultation, has a history, results, precise meanings, and influential implications that the Arabic language has never known, and which has never existed in the consciences of the groups of this region, even in the dictionaries of the language of the groups of the region, Therefore, the connotations and results should not be distorted, and the experiences of other peoples should be looked at seriously and respectfully, and the choices of the overwhelming majority of the world’s societies should be considered, The Muslim’s assumption that he is always right, correct, and better than others, i.e., the best nation, is a sick matter and an indication of human and intellectual decay.
Distances between the world’s groups and societies are shrinking, communication is increasing, and isolation and seclusion are diminishing, In fact, in this era, certain methodologies are being imposed by the international community through the United Nations. Education, for example, is restricted, and groups or quasi-states that do not respect UNESCO’s regulations lose international recognition of certificates issued by their schools and institutes. UNESCO has warned Syria and Erdogan’s Turkey that it will not recognize certificates from Turkish and Syrian schools and institutes, To our knowledge, this non-recognition has already begun with medical degrees, A Syrian doctor wishing to work in Germany must pass an exam to have their Syrian degree recognized, and the same applies to graduates of Turkish Hatip schools and institutes, The issue is not limited to institute certificates; it also extends to the ability to travel from one country to another. For example, Syrians are prohibited from entering the United States, despite Trump’s endorsement of al-Julani. Now, the ban is expanding to include European countries, The value of a Syrian passport is equivalent to that of a Somali passport, and both are at the bottom of the international rankings, while an Israeli can visit approximately 180 countries, In a world without prior entry visas, Kosovo wants EU membership, so it has become secular and separated religion from the state, while the al julanism has merged religion with the state and turned Syria into an emirate ruled by its al julani prince, The results of this development are tangible and visible in the development of the Syrian poverty line!