Islam’s democratic past

THIS WEEK, a joint statement attributed to five insurgent groups in Iraq warned that the Iraqi elections are “a satanic enterprise” and that any Muslim who takes part in the voting violates “the legitimate policy approved by God.” The fact is, not only is voting an eminently Islamic act, Islam introduced the concept of popular sanction over the government in a wide swath of the world.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, the homeland of the Prophet Muhammad, the responsibility for maintaining order fell upon the sheik, or chief of the tribe. This was not an inherited office; the Arabs held enormous contempt for the hereditary kingdoms of the neighboring Persian and Byzantine empires. Rather, the sheik was elected through the conferring of an oath of allegiance, or bay’ah, which was given to the man, not the office. This oath was pledged by every member of the tribe and could be withdrawn if the sheik failed in his duty to protect the needs and interests of his fellow tribesmen.

When the Prophet Muhammad left Mecca for Medina to establish a radically egalitarian community the likes of which had never been seen in Arabia, he adopted the oath of allegiance for converts to his movement. Indeed, the shahadah, or Muslim profession of faith (“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is God’s messenger”), became in effect a new and distinctly Muslim version of the Arab oath of allegiance. However, the bay’ah did not become a specifically political tool until after the prophet’s death in AD 632.

Because Muhammad did not officially choose a successor, it fell to the community he left behind to decide who should lead them. Unsure how to proceed with such a momentous decision, the community fell back on the tribal tradition that had been sanctioned in Medina. They called, first, for a shura, or consultative assembly, of Muslim elders to choose a new leader. Speeches were delivered, political alliances formed and, ultimately, a consensus reached: The choice was Muhammad’s closest friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, who became known as Khalifat Rasul Allah, “the successor to the messenger of God” -- caliph, in English.

Yet the selection of Abu Bakr was meaningless until the entire Muslim community pledged an oath of allegiance to him. In fact, Abu Bakr’s appointment as caliph was delayed because partisans of Muhammad’s nephew and son-in-law, Ali, refused to swear allegiance. It was only after this powerful faction, the Shi’atu Ali, or the Party of Ali (a.k.a. the Shiites), relented and took the oath that Abu Bakr was allowed to assume his leadership role.

Perhaps it seems wrong to call this a democratic process. After all, Abu Bakr was appointed rather than directly elected. But it required community approval nonetheless. The Greeks may have invented democracy, and the Romans may have transformed it into republicanism, but throughout the Middle East, from the Nile in Egypt to the Oxus in Afghanistan and beyond, no other experiment in popular sovereignty had even been imagined, let alone attempted.

The insurgents in Iraq today have been trying to convince others that taking part in this week’s elections is a sin. The true sin is spreading such a message of ignorance and intolerance. Perhaps someone should remind them of the words Abu Bakr delivered to his fellow Muslims on being selected as caliph.

Standing before the community of believers who had pledged him their allegiance, Abu Bakr humbly proclaimed: “Behold me, charged with the cares of the government. I am not the best among you. I need all your advice and help. If I do well, support me; if I make a mistake, counsel me.... As long as I obey God and the prophet, obey me; if I neglect the laws of God and the prophet, I have no right to your obedience.”

One could hardly imagine a stronger endorsement of the political process than this.