Is Islam compatible with liberal democracy? Can Sharia law be transformed into the legislation for running a political government? In recent years, those questions have grown even stronger. People in the West wonder whether Muslims are capable of toleration, capable of living in a pluralistic society, and whether Islam itself allows for Muslims to peacefully coexist in a society where all people of all creeds are welcome. In a recent article featured in The Economist titled ‘Dreaming of a Caliphate’ (September 12^th, 2011), the author states that “It has become more fashionable to argue that something about Islam makes it hard to reconcile with full-blown liberal democracy.” In other words, more and more people have begun to believe that Islam—and thereby, Muslims—cannot support secular rights and freedoms, cannot support democracy, and cannot support pluralism. The article asks whether Islam—and an Islamic Caliphate—could be compatible with the rights and freedoms enjoyed by secular liberal democracies.

This is a serious charge—one that has to be answered. As The Economist notes, one allegation that “Islamosceptics” raise is that Muslims’ desire to revive the Caliphate must necessarily have political implications. They see the Caliphate (or Khilafat) as “a seat of religious-cum-political authority, holding sway over the whole Islamic world—as the ideal form of governance. If that is the case, liberal democracy, in which authority flows from the people regardless of faith, will always be regarded as a compromise at most.” Another worry they have is about the compatibility of Islamic criminal and family law with liberal ideas about the equality of the sexes and the proportionality of punishment, and that Muslims would want to impose their law—Sharia—on non-Muslims.

There are several questions packed into this assumption—first, what is the nature of Khilafat? Must it be political, or is it only spiritual? And what does Islam have to say about a government whose authority comes from people regardless of their religion? Finally, how can Islamic family and criminal law really coexist with liberal rights and conceptions of equality? These questions deserve a close scrutiny of the Holy Qur’an, the Hadith, and example of the Holy Prophet^(saw). In reality, the Caliphate is a spiritual office—not a political one. And Islam not only does not prohibit, but actually endorses a government in which authority “flows from the people regardless of faith.” Finally, Islam prohibits the imposition one’s religious beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.

Khilafat – Political or Spiritual?

One of the most essential questions is regarding the true nature of Khilafat. Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike see it as not just a spiritual institution, but a political one. However, this is a misguided understanding of Khilafat, stemming from a lack of knowledge about the true meaning and significance of Islamic Khilafat. So, who is the Khalifa? In Arabic, the word ‘Khalifa’ means successor, deputy or vicegerent. In other words, A Khalifa is one appointed by God, who succeeds a prophet of God in order to continue his mission. This renders futile the efforts of many Muslim organisations and around the world that are currently attempting to set up an Islamic Khilafat through their own efforts.

The next question is what this mission is. Is it political? Or is it spiritual? Prophets of God do not come to conquer land and territory or to form governments. Instead, they come to promote and establish the worship of one God and raise people’s spiritual and moral awareness. The Holy Qur’an very clearly mentions the objectives of a Prophet. in the following verse:

We have sent to you a messenger from among you, who recites Our verses/signs to you, and purifies you, and teaches you the Book and wisdom, and teaches you that which you knew not. (Ch.2:V.152)

The goals of a Prophet—and thereby, their Khalifas—are to recite the signs of God, to purify or reform people, to teach people about religion, and to impart wisdom to them and thereby raise their moral awareness. The Khalifa does not require any state or political power to perform these functions—just as the Pope does not require political power to lead millions of Catholics. On the other hand, one might object that this does not preclude a political role for the Khalifa—and the question is, is it required that a Khalifa have state control? From a study of the Holy Qur’an, it appears not. After all, Jesus^(as) was also a prophet, and he did not have political power. In the early years of Makkah, the Holy Prophet^(saw), although he was spiritual head of Muslims, did not make any attempt at political power. Furthermore, in the time of Hadhrat Ali^(ra), political power resided in the hands of Amir Muawiyyah, even though Hadhrat Ali^(ra) was the spiritual leader of all Muslims.  There is plenty of evidence that political power absolutely does not need to rest in the hands of the Khalifa. Still, though, there is the worry that, even if political power does not have to rest with the Khalifa, per se, that Muslims believe that it must rest with them, and with them exclusively. A close study of Islam will show that liberal democracies are not just acceptable—they are actually preferred.

More: