Embracing human rights in modern term, as stated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which are based on being human irrespective of one’s race, sex, color, beliefs, etc, plays a highly integral role in democratic systems. Citizens are supposed to be entitled with equal rights and opportunities in participating in political decisions, general assembly and/or playing their role in social, cultural and economic issues. Since, democracy is popularly defined by Abraham Lincoln as, “The government of the people for the people by the people”; people’s part is salient in democratic government.
Mr. Mujtahid Shabestari, an Iranian religious intellectual, believes that democracy will adapt to the customs, cultures, beliefs and particular philosophies of all tribes and nations in any geographical parts of the world without causing a change or imposing particular custom or beliefs on citizens and it is the very antithesis of dictatorial regimes. According to him, democratic government will not prioritize any interpretation of the world, human, custom or belief, for government’s involvement in these issues – which are supposed to be dealt by scholars and philosophers – will pave the way for despotism. He adds that since democracy aims to provide citizens with welfare and worldly comforts rather than heavenly prosperity, one’s religious beliefs will be untouched by this system.
In our society, it seems that democracy challenges our religious beliefs and understandings – which mostly root in traditional interpretations of religion. For instance, the equal rights of men and women or Muslims and non-Muslims are yet the debatable issues not only in our society but also all over the Muslim world. What is the reason behind such interpretations or traditional mentalities?
For centuries, our Muftis referred to the historical backgrounds of women in Arab Peninsula – where women were considered inferior and a sudden Islamization of their culture would lead to a social backlash. Therefore, a swift change was deemed inappropriate in the sensitive condition of Bedouin Arabs and Muslims had no choice other than living with a minor cultural reformation such as precluding them from burying alive the girls, adopting sympathetic attitudes towards women, developing humanly perspectives about them, etc. In other words, Muslims’ humanitarian practices towards male and female smack of their indiscrimination and corroborate the equal rights of both the genders.
It is widely believed that a number of issues were imposed on Islam despite being disfavored by this religion. For instance, if Islam invalidated slavery abruptly, it would not be welcomed in that certain time or circumstance. Therefore, our Prophet (PBUH) was freeing slaves and preached that it was an act of virtue. So, the system of slavery was invalidated with the passage of time. Since Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) held his society’s cultural and social values in high esteem, Muslim Ummah should also respect the social norms of the present era. In other words, our Muftis and clergy are supposed to interpret Islam in a modern way so as to respond properly to the current needs of our younger generation.
A great Afghan Ayatollah Sheikh Ishaq Fayyaz, a theologian in Najaf Madrasah in Iraq, interprets Islam in harmony with our modern age. As a result, unlike many other Muftis, he has issued fatwa that women are no more under the dominance of their husbands. In other words, it was previously said by Muftis that women cannot leave their homes without the permission of their husbands, but he denies it. Moreover, he asserts that women can be candidate for being a leader or a judge and can take active parts in social, cultural, economic, etc. activities the same as men.
Islam has an open structure and no especial parties or institutions are introduced officially in the nature of this religion to explain religious Sharia. Therefore, there exists a myriad of interpretations in Islamic texts, and fundamental interpretations are more prominent than secular ones which are done by the people and among the people. In short, people simply take traditional or radical views out of context.
To know better, let us view these two verses of Holy Qur’an, “O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment. And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life, O you [people] of understanding, that you may become righteous.”
In the second verse which asserts that there is saving of life in retribution, many interpret that letting the murderers kill one with impunity will encourage them more which may lead to further deaths, thus they must be punished. But to ponder over the context of the above verses, the fact will be otherwise. The verse was descended when some tribes, among Bedouin Arabs, prioritized their people and for the death of one member of their tribes, they killed more people in retaliation. In such a case, the verse was sent to establish justice and the correct interpretation is that killing two or more people in retaliation for one death will jeopardize further lives and a just retribution will save the life of others.
To conclude, the door for interpretations of religious texts is open to Muslims and they, especially the Islamic theologians and Muftis, have to interpret Islamic law in a way to suit our modern needs. And considering the above analyses, democracy does not challenge Islamic law but confronts fundamental and traditional interpretations of Islam.