Submission – to use the dictionary definition – would be fulfilling the rulings, determinations, and decisions of an individual or a council comprised of various individuals who have been endorsed by the general public and are authorized to make decisions on different matters. These can be governmental institutions like the army and the police force, or civil society organizations. However, this does not mean that submission is to the individuals who are involved with the decision-making; especially for civil initiatives, no member has such a right to claim submission to themselves.

However, if the decision handed down is about a nationwide mobilization, then these decisions are crucial for collective success. As such, they should be obeyed. Under those conditions, consultation and submission are like the different faces of the same reality.

As mentioned in the question, matters accepted by a majority of a council may not seem reasonable to everyone and may not be accepted by everyone. To be absolved of responsibility before God, those who are members of the council can articulate the differences in their reasoning, refrain from rashly saying “yes,” and make a note of their opposition to decisions made. Actually, this is the real meaning of consultation. However, if a decision has been made on the issue at hand in spite of the opposition of some, then afterwards the opposing parties should not say a word against the decision and should conform to the decision. This kind of talk is back-biting, especially if the committee is convening to serve a lofty cause. Back-biting is a violation of the rights of a group that is serving the Truth and requires the one who back-bites to ask for forgiveness from each member of the council

Yes, we must respect decisions made through consultation. For example, imagine a consulting group decided to go someplace and then set out on their journey. Then, say, an accident took place on the road – may God prevent it. After the accident, those who had opposed the decision might be compelled to say things like, “Didn’t we tell you? If we had not gone, there would not have been an accident. We went, and this happened to us.” Not only is this criticism of fate, but it is also considered back-biting against the other friends.

The Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) determination on this matter is striking. He consulted with his Companions before the Battle of Uhud. His own view was to remain in Medina and fight on the defensive. However, as a result of the consultation, the decision was made to leave Medina and meet the enemy in the open. As a necessity of this decision, the Seal of the Prophethood went to Uhud. Sayyid Qutb’s excellent interpretation on this point is very appropriate: “When the Messenger of God set out for Uhud, if he had known not only that there would be 70 martyrs, but that Medina would be totally destroyed, he still would have gone in order to give the council its right.”

Yes, consultation has a very important place in Islam and the lives of Muslims. A destroyed Medina could be rebuilt, but if a principle of Islam had been destroyed, especially when its foundations were being laid down, it would have been impossible to reconstruct it. Consequently, everyone on a council should put forth his or her useful ideas to the group and they should enable everyone to understand those ideas. But then they should adhere to a decision even if it is contrary to their ideas.

The principles I have tried to present are related to submission to a decision. Another facet of this matter – which is just as important – are the responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of the decision-makers to ensure these decisions are acted upon. The Prophet’s life presents us many good examples from which we can derive general principles on this matter. Let’s take a bird’s-eye look at some historical events.

Arabs in the Age of Ignorance acted individually. Even the smallest incident could immediately cause families and tribes to fight against each other. It was impossible for the individuals of such a society to obey others.  At that time there were many tribes in Mecca and Medina, and all of them had become splintered. When they could not find anyone outside to fight with, they would draw their swords and fight with each other. To develop the concept of obedience amidst such a society, and to gather them around one leader, is proof of the Prophet’s apostleship. In my opinion, this matter has been overlooked by researchers who study the life of the Prophet. Yes, the Seal of Prophets turned warring tribes into a civilized community that listened to each other and obeyed authority.

During the same time period, Arabs never looked at slaves as human beings, especially if they were black. Due to this attitude, Bilal al-Habashi, may God be pleased with him, did not even have the right to enter the room where Umayya b. Halaf ate. In other words, people debated whether or not a slave was even a human being, and, if black, whether the slave was a human or an animal. Islam came and raised slaves to such a high level that Bilal was able to intervene in events among notable citizens and express his own views. He also had the same rights as any other person when it came to approaching the Prophet.

Zayd b. Haritha was the freed slave of the Prophet. The Messenger of God appointed Zayd b. Haritha commander of the army, even though there were aristocrats and war heroes such as Jafar b. Abu Talib, Abdullah b. Rawaha, and Halid b. Walid (ra) serving in this army. When sent to war, the nobles put aside their views from the Age of Ignorance and obeyed their commander.

Abdullah ibn Huzafetu’s-Sahmi related another event, this one from during the Age of Happiness. The Prophet gave a battallion to this great man and sent him some place. Understanding that one of those under his command was lacking in his understanding of obedience, Abdullah had a fire lit and gave the command, “Throw yourselves into the fire!” In view of this order, some wanted to immediately jump into the fire. Some held back saying, “We escaped this fire and pledged our faith to the Messenger of God. Are we going to throw ourselves into the fire now?” Upon returning from the campaign, they related this incident to the Prophet. He replied, “If you had entered that fire, you would have remained in it eternally!” Because this would have been suicide. Suicide is an act prohibited by God. “Where there is rebellion against God, there is no obedience to a creature.” In matters that are definitely unlawful, no one is to be obeyed.

For example, within this framework, it is very important to act in accordance with Bediuzzaman’s measure, “A brother cannot be a father to his brother; the state of a master cannot be assumed.”  This means that one should not use people like slaves and should not see one’s position as a means for pressuring others. Instead, a person should do work within the range of their capabilities. 

Yes, if these can be put into practice, none of the negative things implied in the question will take place. Here the incident that occurred between Ubay b. Kab and Ibn Abbas should amaze us. One day while Ubayy was mounting a horse, Ibn Abbas held the horse’s stirrup. In response to this behavior, Ubayy b. Ka’b said, “What are you doing? You are the son of the Prophet’s uncle.” Ibn Abbas replied, “We have been commanded to show respect to our seniors.” Then Ubayy held Ibn Abbas’s hand and kissed it. “And we have been commanded to treat the Prophet’s family like this,” he said.

I think that if this reciprocity is developed, the obedient ones will not say, “We obey,” with disagreeableness, nor will their superiors have to reprimand those who do not obey them. In short, consultation is prophetic; acting all by oneself and disregarding consultation is not. Submission is a natural result of consultation. Although God’s Messengers were strengthened by revelation, they acted with consultation. To the contrary, if we look at the many “pharaohs” throughout history – from Ramesses to Amenhotep, and Caesar to Napoleon, up to the even crazier Hitler, Stalin and Lenin – they were despotic apprentices to the devil, who made solitary decisions and executions.

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman’s work on intuition reveals an important categorization of human thinking: one takes place effortlessly, immediately after the stimulus and without the command or approval of the self; the other one takes time and effort, and requires approval and guidance from deeper consciousness. The former is called System 1, or fast thinking, and the latter is called System 2, or slow thinking^[2].

System 1 handles basic tasks like walking, breathing, and calculations like determining the value of 2 x 2, while System 2 takes on more complicated, abstract decision making tasks, such as recognizing a face that hasn’t been seen for a long time, making investment decisions, and calculations such as multiplying multiple digit numbers, e.g., 435 x 23. Many of our mistakes, Kahneman says, occur when exhaustion or other factors cause System 1 to do jobs better suited for System 2.

System 1 thinking is highly prone to error and it usually results in mistakes, most of which can be avoided if System 2 thinking is employed. Each individual is responsible for determining if a situation calls for fast or slow thinking. Age, education, and economic and social status have effects on whether System 1 and System 2 are employed properly.

When System 1 and System 2 thinking mechanisms are considered in the social context, it provides a whole new dimension in analyzing social issues, their solutions and public policies. Although System 1 and System 2 thinking are pertinent to individuals, society in general may be greatly affected by how people in decision and/or policy making positions employ those systems, since such decisions, good or bad, are consequential with regards to their likely impact on the betterment of society.

Kahneman’s study gives us a good understanding of the mechanisms employed in the human decision making process. Various factors that cause people to use System 1 when System 2 is a better fit have been studied; however, what motivates people using System 2 remains opaque, despite its crucial role in our personal life and in society at large.

When Kahneman was asked what the simplest, most straightforward advice he would give to someone who wants to make sure they are not ceding certain, important System 2 decisions and calculations to System 1, his answer was, “Slow down, sleep on it, and ask your most brutal and least empathetic close friends … who understand your feeling but are not overly impressed by them”^[3].

Such discoveries of human behavioral patterns remind us of a tradition that has been promoted throughout history in sacred texts and the works of scholars. This tradition is called consultation. The theological motivation for the institution of consultation is the result of one’s acceptance of his/her limits and/or humbleness, and the hope that thanks to this acceptance of not knowing all the aspects of a subject, God, the All-Knowing, will show the right way and lead him/her to the path that is best.

The Proverbs refer to persons who do things with counsel as prudent men: “Among the proud there are always contentions: but they that do all things with counsel, are ruled by wisdom”^[4]. The significance of consultation is made obvious in the Qur’an by naming a chapter Consultation (Ash-Shura); the chapter emphasizes the role of consultation in personal and social life [5]. Another verse suggests utilizing consultation in public affairs^[6].

The prominent 20th century scholar Said Nursi makes a point on consultation in his unique way: “… each individual in a true, sincere union can also see with the eyes of other brothers and sisters, and hear with their ears. It is as if each of the ten persons in true solidarity and unity has the value and power of seeing with twenty eyes, thinking with ten intellects, hearing with twenty ears …”^[7].

System 1 thinking has greater control over our judgments, especially in the presence of intense emotions such as excitement and anger. It is not uncommon that we regret the promises we make within the excitement of a moment or the things we say when we are angry. Abu Dharr reported something along these lines: Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said to us, “If one of you is angry when he is standing, let him sit down so that the anger will leave him; otherwise, let him lie down”^[8]. Changes such as switching positions can buy just enough time for System 2 to kick in. The devil is in details, think before you speak, and think twice before you act – these are some of the idioms and proverbs that guide us on how to keep a healthy balance between fast and slow thinking.

The risk of error in our decisions and judgments can be alleviated as we move from Thinking Fast to Thinking Slow – and even further to Thinking Together, i.e. consulting with relevant parties. In a sense, humbleness is the key attribute that prevents us from making “fast” decisions without due reflection and encourages us to consult with others, and hence, make better decisions on issues that challenge us.

Gokhan Aydin is a graduate student at Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, RF/Microwave Lab. Syracuse University.

REFERENCES

1. Herbert A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
2. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2013
3. Jesse Signal, Daniel Kahneman’s Gripe with Behavioral Economics, www.thedailybeast.com
4. Proverbs 13:10.
5. The Holy Quran, Chapter 42, Verse 38, Translation by Ali Unal
6. The Holy Quran, Al Imran, 159, Translation by Ali Unal
7. The Twenty-First Gleam, The Gleams, by BSN, Tugra Books, New Jersey, 2008
8. Abu Dawud, 4782

Variation in forms of democracy

Although it is common to discuss democracy as if it is problematic only in the Muslim world, in reality democracies all over the world have to deal with a number of controversial issues about the diverse forms of government, varieties of representation, the types of freedom citizens require or demand, the unlegislated distribution of political power, uneven separation of powers, and the breach of the system of rule by the accumulated powers. (Diamond, 2008: 17-24, 30-33)

Gulen’s intellectual contribution to the global discussion of democracy, which is determined by his adherence to Islamic values, is not limited to an analysis of democracy’s value and meaning for individuals and societies. In addition, he examines how democracy is affected by the crises which people and systems undergo, as well as the complexities of life in modern industrialized societies, and the contraction in the space available for individual and collective expression of cultural, moral and spiritual values. (Cetin, 2008: 226-30)

According to Gulen the understanding of democracy and human rights within the theoretical heritage of Islam is not dogmatic but it centers around values such as compromise, stability, the protection of the life, honor and dignity of the human being, justice, equity, dialogue, and consultation. Islamic political theory is flexible and does not bind Muslims by any rigid limits in the choice of concrete forms of government and political system. The main principle in Islamic political theory is the implementation of three fundamental values: equality, justice and consultation. The forms and means of enactment of these are vested in the hands of the community. Thus, the actual realization of the three pillars can and must take into account the conditions of Muslims’ lives, their traditions, cultural preferences, and other factors. Gulen argues that the social, cultural, political and historical aspects of societies, should be taken into account in the development of democracy in the entire world.

Observers discussing the compatibility between Western and Muslim perspectives on democracy and human rights sometimes make the error of attacking “Islam” and demanding its reform, instead of commenting on the approaches or methods of particular activists, regimes or countries and reforming those. Some observers even claim Islamic principles and institutions directly contradict democratic values in their modern meaning, and so any step by Muslim societies towards the establishment of democracy must be accompanied by rejecting Islamic political and legal traditions. At the other extreme, ideologically motivated Muslims claim to have the only correct understanding of Islam, and that Islamic fundamentals of power, politics and believers’ rights have nothing in common with Western democratic institutions. These extremists often argue that “the power of the people” is alien to Islam, which puts forward the principle of the supremacy of Islamic law instead. (Sykiainen, 2007: 122-3)

In fact, the concepts advanced in this type of argumentation are taken out of the whole context of Islamic thought and its socio-political heritage and are addressed to less well-educated Muslims (and others) in order to justify political extremism. Nevertheless, within both traditional and modern Islamic political and legal thought, there are several different perspectives on government which are more genuinely representative of the Islamic legal tradition and which do not justify extremism. (Gulen, 2004:220; also <http://en.fgulen.com/a.page/press/interview/ a1203.html>).

Islamic jurisprudence embodies the divine revelation, the art of lawyers, local and global cultures, and global relationships. Islamic law and the legal system, its common principles and the majority of its concrete norms are similar to the fundamental ideas and particular provisions of other legal systems. Islamic legal culture has always cooperated closely with and been receptive to other legal cultures. In this sense, Islamic law is of benefit not only to Muslims but to the whole of humanity. Over many centuries a great variety of views on the fundamentals of the executive and the legislature have developed within Islamic culture, and diverse notions of the relations between the state and the individual have been elaborated. (Sykiainen, 2007: 119-132)

One of the key features of the Islamic understanding of democracy is the concept of shura (collective and community consultation). Without any qualification or limitation, all members of a community are eligible to give or request consultation on any matter, except one covered by a clear-cut revelation from God. Consequently, all political matters concerning the selection of the ruler, the structure and shape of the government, the form of political system, the running of the government and of the various affairs of the state, and all other related matters are to be decided by consultation through the participation of all the members of the community. (Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

In public and government affairs collective consultation is concerned with two main issues: the selection of the head of state and running of the government together with reviewing the legality and propriety of governmental and presidential actions. On the selection of the head of state, collective consultation is flexible and adopts various forms. Elections, whether direct or indirect, are considered to be an Islamic method of selecting the head of state or members of the legislative body which satisfies the consultation process. With regard to the running of the government and control over the legality and propriety of the executive’s actions, Islamic law is also very flexible. The establishment of a representative body through direct or indirect elections is compatible with Islam and is a good application of community and collective consultation. In addition to their reviewing authorities, representative bodies may be empowered to legislate on different matters provided that such regulations do not violate any unambiguous and clear-cut principle or rule of Islamic injunctions. If democracy is the government of the people by the people for the people, shura is a process which guarantees that all affairs of the people are decided by the people and for their interests. So, the basics of democracy and the fundamentals of shura in the political field are not opposed. (Gulen, 2004:223; Sykiainen, 2007:110, Cetin 2008: 218; Gulen, 2005: 43-58)

This genuine Islamic idea is one of the most basic human rights and a means of protecting and preserving all other human rights under Islamic law, especially the right to equality, the freedom of thought, and the right to express oneself freely in order to correct or demand the correction of what is not right, even if it is something committed by the highest officials, including the head of state. State officials and authorities do not have political immunity while in office in Islam. (Gulen, 2006)

Law, order and, human rights

Gulen analyzes the different rights recognized in Islam, including freedom of religion and belief, thought and expression, to own property and the sanctity of one’s home, to marry and have children, to communicate and to travel, and the right to an unimpeded education. He underlines that the principles of Islamic jurisprudence are based on these and other rights, all of which have now been accepted by modern legal systems, such as the protection of life, religion, property, family life, and intellect, as well as the basic understanding of the equality of people, which is based on the fact that all people are human beings, and subsequently, the rejection of all racial, color, and linguistic discrimination. (Ünal and Williams, 2000:135-8)

Every single right must be respected in Islam. In particular, the right of an individual cannot be violated for the interest of the community. This idea is central to the concept of human rights in Islam and the interpretation of Islamic tradition with regard to this issue. Gulen recalls that if there are nine criminals and only one innocent person on a ship, in order to punish the criminals, Islam does not permit the sinking of that ship because of the innocent person. Though this may sound utopian today considering the mass and “collateral” damage caused by modern nations at war, Gulen argues that the bar should be set at the highest possible level for democracy and every effort to reach that level should be attempted. (Gulen, 2006; also personal correspondence, 08.11.2008).

Gulen underlines that people everywhere always demand freedom of choice within their beliefs, that is, in the way they run their affairs and in their expression of spiritual and religious values. He stresses the separation of the eternal and the evolving judgments (ijtihad) of Islamic jurisprudence. Specifically, political affairs in general and democratic institutions and human rights in particular are covered by Islamic legislative provisions which can relate and respond to the needs of changing circumstances and times. Gulen points out that democracy will continue to evolve and refine itself in the future. Islamic principles of equality, tolerance, and justice can help in this regard, provided that the injunctions of the Qur’an and the Sunna as well as any definite judgments of Islamic law are re-examined and restored in the light of advancing knowledge and changes in societies. (Sykiainen, 2007: 129-30)

It is possible to envisage a kind of democracy with a spiritual dimension. It is a democracy which contains respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, expression and religion, a democracy which prepares the necessary conditions for people to live and practice as they believe, which renders people able to fulfill their wish and need for eternity, and which takes or deals with human beings as a whole with regard to their all material and immaterial needs. For, human life does not start and end with life in this world; the world is only a temporal, transit station, and people are ceaselessly moving toward their eternal abode. The system that governs them must not ignore or neglect this crucial matter. We therefore have to seek ways to sophisticate and humanize democracy. No such stage or democracy has been attained yet, in east or west, north or south, but we can aspire to and work for such an aim. (Gulen, 2006; Gulen in Saritoprak and Ünal, 2005: 452)

Democratic culture

In Gulen’s view, therefore it is vital to encourage the building of a strong civil society in order to have and retain a ‘culture’ of democracy, and this can only be done through sound education. In a democracy, where people are entitled to freedom of speech, expression, religion, and the right to sell their labor, and other such rights, every individual should know what kinds of rights they have and what authority, weight and say they have in state and government affairs. (Gulen, 2006; Cetin, 2008: 216-20)

In all societies on some occasions, or even for extended periods, some interests will not be happy about all individuals being aware of their rights; they may see such education as an obstacle to their gaining political or economic power or even arbitrary rule. Consequently, they may attempt to limit citizens’ access to information and institutions and try to guide them in directions which do not serve citizens’ own true interests. (Gulen, 2006)

However, it is impossible to enjoy and practice democracy in a society where people are unaware of their rights and freedom, where people do not know how to seek and pursue their rights, where, in short, they do not have a developed democratic culture. In such societies occasional openings or temporary freedoms might be enjoyed, but it is always possible for special interests to come up with further impositions and undemocratic interventions. In many parts of the world we see tyrannical, authoritarian and dictatorial leaders who exploit or manipulate, for example, the electoral process, the legal system or the constitution not in the name of the progress or development of the country but for the continuance of their own power or in pursuit of self-interest or the interest of a select group around them. (Gulen, 2006)

To counteract the activities of vested interests, while individuals are being asked to fulfill their rights and duties in democratic system, in addition to knowledge they also need to have the self-confidence and the civic courage to own and defend their rights (Gulen, 2006). Here Gulen’s contribution to the development of democracy around the globe lies not only in his intellectual contribution to debate, but also in his ability to inspire action; this practical ability has led to the development of schools, universities, intercultural and interfaith dialogue groups and other institutions throughout the world.

Conclusions

Gulen’s approach is powerful proof of the democratic ideas propagated by Islam, as he is convinced that Islamic democracy and secular political liberalization are not two separate phenomena. He points out that the dominant Islamic culture in the Muslim world co-exists with democratic arrangements on the global level. So, the concept of modernization and democratization does not inevitably mean Westernization but can involve the possibility of adoption of many Western democratic achievements within the Islamic framework. Thus, political culture and democracy practiced among Muslims develop not by their isolation from or opposition to others but by giving of their own achievements and taking the best from others. Gulen proves that Islamic intellectual heritage and political culture must be revisited and respected and that Muslims’ progress depends on the development of knowledge in Islamic sciences (‘ilm) and contemporary technical education (fen). Finally, Gulen life’s work has shown that there is no inherent conflict between Islamic thought and tradition and modern democracy. He has contributed positively to the understanding of democracy, civil society and human rights. (Cetin 2008: 219; Hunt, 2007:8-9; Barton, 2005: 43; Eickelman, 2002:4.)

Muhammed Cetin is the Publications Co-ordinator of the Institute of Interfaith Dialog (IID) and also writes weekly as a columnist in the international daily Today’s Zaman. He has a PhD in sociology.

References

• Barton, G. (2005) “Progressive Islamic thought, civil society and the Gulen movement in the national context: parallels with Indonesia.” Presented at the conference “Islam in the Contemporary World: The Fethullah Gulen Movement in Thought and Practice,” Rice University Conference, Houston, Texas, November 12-13, 2005, pp.51.
• Çetin, M. (2008) “Reductionist Approaches to the Rise and Aims of the Gulen Movement,” at the conference “Islam in the Age of Global Challenges: Alternative Perspectives of the Gulen Movement,” November 14-15, 2008, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., pp. 204-40.
• Diamond, L. (2008) The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Times Books.
• Eickelman, D. F. (2002) “The Arab “Street” and the Middle East’s Democracy deficit.” Naval War College Review, LV(4), p.10. Available from: <http:// nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/autumn/pdfs/art3-a02.pdf> [October 9, 2006].
• Gulen, M. F. (2004) Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2005) The Statue of Our Souls: Revival in Islamic Thought and Activism. Somerset, New Jersey, The Light Inc.
• Gulen, M. F. (2006) “Demokrasi Yokusu”, 02.01.2006 [Herkül online] http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/index.php?view=article&article_id=2846
• Hunt, R. (2007) “Challenges in Understanding the Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 1-10.
• Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007) Muslim Citizens of the Globalized World: Contributions of the Gulen Movement. Somerset, New Jersey, IID Press & The Light Inc.
• Saritoprak, Z. & Ünal, A. (2005) An interview with Fethullah Gulen. The Muslim World Special Issue, Islam in Contemporary Turkey: the Contributions of Gulen 95(3), 447-67.
• Sykiainen, L. (2007) “Democracy and the Dialogue between Western and Islamic Legal Cultures: The Gulen Case.” In: Hunt, R. A. & Aslandogan, Y. A. eds. (2007), 121-32.
• Ünal, A. & Williams, A. (2000) Fethullah Gulen: Advocate of Dialogue. Fairfax, VA, The Fountain.