Freedom in Islamic Thought: An Intellectual Study

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

This chapter addresses an important subject of our age: freedom. Adherents of various philosophies, democracy foremost among them, attack Islam, claiming it leaves no room for freedoms and is a repressive religion that drives people with the sword and the stick. This Western claim has been reinforced by the unjust conduct tyrants practice across the Arab homeland and the Islamic world. Does Islam obstruct the formation of a free society? Does it strip people of their capacity for discernment and initiative? Given that the philosophies challenging Islam are powerful and widespread on the world stage, it is important to answer this question in a rigorous, scientifically sound manner. We cannot answer the world by saying those philosophies establish systems of unbelief — we must instead show the world how the Islamic system establishes a freedom more elevated than that established by other systems, democracy foremost among them. We must approach others with a scientific mind, not a sentimental tone that merely expresses our own convictions as Muslims, because we want to be persuasive, not merely insistent on what we say.

Before proceeding, let me note that I am speaking of Islam, not of Muslims, out of my own conviction that some practices of Muslims are not Islamic at all.

The democratic idea is currently sweeping the world, finding for itself broad space in media and cultural activity, whether at the level of seminars, lectures, televised meetings, or newspaper pages. There is no doubt the idea carries a powerful allure, particularly for peoples suffering oppression and despotism. This allure has transformed it from an intellectual dimension and theoretical framework for organizing political society into practical exercises related to basic freedoms, including freedom of expression, movement, and organization. People generally are not so concerned with searching for the philosophical foundations from which democracy springs as they are with certain appearances and political practices they find comfortable, praise, and wish were part of their own reality, hoping they might enjoy some of the good fortune enjoyed by peoples who have established democratic political systems.

This general popular impression of democracy has prevailed across the Islamic world and the Arab homeland, until the popular conception of it became synonymous with freedom itself, with no thought crossing people’s minds that freedom might be more comprehensive, or less expansive, than democracy, and that each concept has its own particular meaning that may intersect with the other without necessarily being identical to it. This may be what led some Muslim thinkers or writers to claim that Islam is democratic, and that democratic values are Islamic values that must be defended. Instead of focusing their research on the field of freedoms in Islam, they set out to speak of Islamic modernity clothed in democratic garb, while others rushed to attack democracy as a system of unbelief, defining freedom as faith bound by so many commands and prohibitions that one can no longer distinguish between freedom and a cage.

Basic Premises

Before addressing the idea of freedom in Islam, it is important to attend to some of the basic premises from which systems — democracy and Islam in particular — proceed in organizing societies and arranging their way of life. It is difficult to understand any system without returning to the roots from which it rises upward. Democracy has its basic premises, and so does Islam, and we cannot grasp the meaning of freedom in either without first grasping these foundations.

Individualism and Collectivism

Democracy, as a political system, proceeds from two main principles: individualism and liberalism. As a system originally emerging from the accumulated Western political experience, democracy rested on the totality of philosophical interactions that flourished within that Western experience over the years, and on the dynamic dialectical relationship between these interactions and the movement of Western social, political, and economic reality. These interactions were marked by a bipolar tension between individualism and collectivism, a tension resolved, at this historical stage, in individualism’s favor.

In great brevity, individualism holds that the individual is the foundation of society, not the reverse — that he precedes society practically, in terms of birth, and theoretically, in terms of his independence as a person not subordinate to preconceived notions or ideas. Social behavior is individual behavior, and can be explained on the basis of individuals’ motives, dispositions, and inclinations. Every social condition or event is the result of a specific configuration made by persons, not of collective initiatives reflecting a general interest.

The achievements of society are, at bottom, the achievements of individuals, and every obstacle facing an individual’s progress is certainly an obstacle facing society as a whole. The good of society is achieved through each individual achieving his own interest, and what he believes to be his own good. Accordingly, the institutions of society rest on individualist premises. They presuppose that the individual responds to reward and punishment, whether psychological or material, and so individuals behave according to the prevailing rules, because compliance leads to reward and non-compliance leads to punishment.

The individual belongs to a number of groupings, associations, and institutions, and thereby holds a number of loyalties corresponding to the different goals these pursue. He therefore acts in different ways according to the role expected of him, and his behavior changes as the rules change. This is the social behavior of the individual — it changes as norms, systems, controls, and circumstances change. For this reason, it is not unlikely for the individual to clash with himself, because the interests of societies and institutions may conflict. This is what drives the individual to work toward finding a point of balance by adapting to the various conditions and groupings he belongs to.

Liberalism, meanwhile, presupposes the individual’s liberation when he moves from the public sphere into the private one. In his public position, the individual is bound by the behaviors or rules that position sets, because he is the one who chose to be within that position and was not forced into it; in his private position, however, he is the one who decides what binds him and what does not. The values governing him in his private position are purely subjective values he sets for himself, however he sees fit, in weaving his private relationships and in choosing his orientation toward the public position. If he considers permissiveness, for instance, the supreme, praiseworthy value, there are no restraints on arranging his private affairs in that direction, nor any restraint on his working within an institution or belonging to a group that adopts permissiveness as its supreme value.

And if he believes life is elevated only through moral restraints of a public dimension, he is free to arrange his affairs accordingly. And just as the individual is able to shape his own affairs dynamically, without assuming the fixity of the moral ground he starts from, the institution can do the same — provided it does not violate the law in force, ratified within political frameworks resting on the individualism democracy presupposes. The law defines what is permitted and forbidden; whatever falls outside it belongs to individual freedom.

At the collective level, the term “organicism” prevails in philosophical circles, a term indicating that collectivism is not merely a legal and political fabric, but a living whole in which lives and activities are interwoven, forming the basis and framework of progress. Organicists presuppose that the state or society is an integrated living organism, not fundamentally different from any other living being. The state or society is a distinct living organism, and the parts of this organism (individuals and institutions) depend on one another in mutual interdependence, and these parts have no value or meaning without the whole, and no purpose except through the whole. Accordingly, each part works to fulfill its function or duty as well as possible, exactly like the human body, made up of parts that depend on one another to achieve meaning, purpose, and function. And in order for such a state to be realized, an educational curriculum is needed that raises the individual according to what is consistent with organic natural law.

Islam differs, in its basic premise, from both individualist and collectivist systems, in that it combines individualism and collectivism together — something considered strange in the history of political philosophy. On the collective side, it is clear from the Noble Qur’an that God created us in pairs as a natural condition, and did not create people singly. The verse says: “and that He created the two mates, the male and the female” (Qur’an 53:45). God, glory be to Him, did not create a single male individual and a single female individual, but rather a pair: a male mate and a female mate. Another verse states: “And of everything We have created pairs, that you might reflect” (51:49). Indeed, the creation of the pair came from a single soul, according to the verse: “Glory be to Him who created all the pairs — of what the earth grows, and of themselves, and of that which they do not know” (36:36). And another verse confirms creation from a single soul, and the making (creation is not an initial act) of the pairing: “He created you from a single soul; then He made from it its mate, and He sent down for you of the cattle eight kinds in pairs…” (39:6, with reference also to 39:14 in context).

The mate is not an individual but a complement to another, and is therefore not disposed to remain solitary, nor able to do so, according to the very nature of his creation. A person may live alone under a certain roof, but this does not strip him of his natural capacity, and if he tries to be an individual, he is trying to negate his own natural capacity — unless this merely reflects a circumstance he happens to be in, rather than a mental or psychological state.

The matter does not stop at pairs — it extends to making people into peoples and tribes. God made (that is, created them, meaning He added one act of creation upon another) people into peoples and tribes, according to the verse: “O mankind, indeed We created you from a male and a female, and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted” (49:13). This verse decisively establishes that a human being cannot be a mere individual, since by creation he is a mate, and by the divine act of “making” he is a member of a tribe or people. This shows Islam’s position on theories of the formation of societies, theories which most philosophers have grounded in the principle of need or necessity, playing a mechanistic role rather than a causal one.

Authors should attend to the precision of expression in the Noble Qur’an, and avoid confusing words and meanings. I have read a fair number of authors, and found among them some who say Islam is collectivist, and others who say Islam is individualist, based on interpretations that are difficult to accept. At times an author sees Islam as resembling socialism because it is collectivist, and at other times an author appears to say Islam is democratic because it is individualist.

Islam is not solely collectivist, and the proof is that responsibility falls on the single individual, in this world and the next, and he receives reward or punishment for what he himself has done. There are many verses on this matter, of which I note: “Every soul, for what it has earned, is held in pledge” (74:38). And: “That no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and that there is nothing for man except what he strives for, and that his striving will be seen, then he will be recompensed for it with the fullest recompense” (53:38-41). Since the reckoning rests on a personal basis, the exercise of personhood in this worldly life remains decisive, because personal accountability presupposes that a person is responsible for his own actions. If a person were dissolved into a group, or forced into that dissolution, he would be freed of his own individual responsibility, and the members of the group, or those who forced him into dissolution, would become the subject of the reckoning instead. And since God holds every soul accountable for its own deeds, considering it responsible for everything it does, it is inconceivable that Islam would dissolve the single human being into a group, or force him into that dissolution. God, exalted is He, says: “And every man — We have fastened to him his fate around his neck, and We shall bring forth for him, on the Day of Resurrection, a record which he will find spread open. ‘Read your record. Sufficient is yourself this day as a reckoner against you’” (17:13-14).

This means the human being is individual and collective at once, and in this Islam stands apart from other global systems. But is it possible to combine these two opposites, or, if you will, these two contraries? Islam combines them on the premise that working within the collective is a virtue that redounds to the benefit of the self — if not in this world, then in the next, and possibly in both. Work for the common good — such as spending, scholarly contribution, or jihad — is an act of worship that brings its doer reward, and he is held accountable for failing to do it. It is a duty God has imposed on the human being as a member of a group, and it is also a right belonging to the human being, because through it he sees himself as a participating, active member, rewarded with the fullest recompense. And work for individual benefit is likewise both a duty and a right, because a person must work and rely on himself, and must also be productive so that his life has meaning and substance, and this too is an act of worship for which he is rewarded. So when a person acts for his own private benefit, his eye remains on the common good, causing it no harm but rather reinforcing it, and when he acts for the common good, his eye remains on his own private benefit, causing it no harm but rather reinforcing it as well.

The individual complements the collective, so that neither dominates the other, and each serves both the particular person and society, or the nation as a whole. This mutual complementarity falls within a framework of worship whose goal is the application of a sacred law resting on an integrated moral system, whether at the level of doctrine, right and wrong, or permitted and forbidden. This, specifically, is what distinguishes the basic Islamic premise from the democratic, communist, or capitalist premise. It is a system that pairs the person and the group, not as opposites, but as two elements working together — not merely coexisting, but integrated in a way that preserves the individual’s personhood, neither dissolving him into the group nor feeding private interest at the expense of the public. It is the unity of opposites, entirely consistent with cosmic integration, whether within the framework of physical (human) or human laws generally. It attends to the person and respects his privacy and his ambitions for progress and achievement, and attends to the group so that no individual dominates it and exploits it for his own benefit. It is a premise that distinguishes the person from the group without severing him from it, while the democratic premise distinguishes the individual by severing him, and the communist premise neither distinguishes the person nor severs him.

Freedom of Choice

Through the integration of the individual and the collective, behavior and morality are integrated, the legislative and the cosmic, the subjective and the objective. Since the human being is collective by creation, and since legislation obligates a person not to go to excess in either direction but to remain balanced, so as not to lose equilibrium between the subjective and the objective, Islam establishes a conduct that does not contradict creation but is consistent with it. This is, philosophically, extremely well-ordered, because whoever created the universe within specific laws and rules cannot possibly legislate behavior that contradicts what is cosmic. Note that the Divine Self is not subject to rationality or logic, and the matter remains within our own relative capacity to reason about things and comprehend them mentally.

This leads us to the problem of freedom of choice, which Westerners say only democracy guarantees and defends. Islam, according to a number of their authors, does not guarantee this freedom, and insists on directing the human being according to rigid rules that strip him of his freedom and his capacity for creativity and participation in the works of society. Some Islamists who treat Islam as something belonging to the past reinforce this view, saying Islam has already provided solutions to every problem and every matter that may arise, and that the Muslim needs no creativity, only knowledge of legal details, and that if he is to use his mind at all, he may do so only within the bounds of the legal rules and their details, without venturing toward creative interpretations or independent reasoning that might find fault with the past. Some Islamic reformers also reinforce this view through their inclination to glorify democracy, on the premise that Islam does not contradict it, making it, intentionally or not, the reference point against which Islamic teachings and behaviors can be measured — and among these are well-known major writers.

Freedom of choice in Islam is a matter of creation, while in democracy it is a matter of social history, and the difference between the two freedoms is vast, unbridgeable. They proceed from two entirely different starting points, despite the resemblance or coincidence of some of their practical reflections. Freedom of choice in Islam is a matter of creation because the capacity for discernment is itself a matter of creation, arising from the capacity God instilled in the human being’s very nature. God, exalted is He, says: “By the soul and He who proportioned it, and inspired it with its wickedness and its righteousness. He has succeeded who purifies it, and he has failed who corrupts it” (91:7-10). And He says: “And We guided him to the two paths” (90:10). The human being is rational, thinks, and can decide for and about himself, distinguishing between good and bad things, right and wrong. In affirmation of his rationality, God, glory be to Him, asks him repeatedly in the Noble Qur’an to reflect and reason over God’s signs, so that he may grasp the divine miracle, understand, and develop wisdom. For instance, God addresses him: “Let man then look at what he was created from” (86:5), and also: “Then let man look at his food” (80:24). This is an address directed at a rational being, meant to draw out lessons and wisdom and to advance knowledge and science through discovering the secrets of the universe and its divine laws. So a human being does not content himself with saying, for example, that man was created from clay — he must investigate the matter further to reach conclusions, and it is not enough to look at kinds of food and marvel — he must examine their components and their secrets. He is capable of doing this, because he was created with the very capacity that equips him for it. And the human being remembers what he does, which reinforces his rationality. God, exalted is He, says: “The Day when man will remember that for which he strove” (79:35). Nor does he stop at mere remembering — he is capable of weighing his own deeds and passing judgment on them. He knows what deeds he has done and how far he has strayed from the path of truth, as the verse says: “Rather, man, over himself, will be a witness” (75:14 [rendered here as verse 10 in the source]). He is capable of putting himself on trial and holding himself accountable, at least in terms of knowledge.

The capacity for discernment is a matter of creation, and freedom of choice follows from it — otherwise the wisdom behind that discernment would be nullified, along with it the validity of certain Islamic legal rulings, such as the freedom to choose between faith and unbelief, and along with it as well the human being’s responsibility for his own deeds and actions. Freedom as a matter of creation means the human being did not choose to be free — rather, God decreed that he be free; he did not invent the idea of choice, but was born with it as an inseparable part of his mental makeup. It is a divine decree, just as every law of the universe is a divine decree that cannot be undone, and that the human being possesses no power or capacity to abolish, lessen, or avoid. It is a fixed cosmic law that the human being can only study, trying to discover its secrets and its consequences, and the factors that lead to making the best use of it and refining human capacities toward further discovery, innovation, and knowledge. Any attempt to leap over this decree, or this created reality, or to abolish it, leads not only to harming the human being and society, but constitutes an assault on what God has decreed.

This creation is reinforced by clear legislation, as the verse says: “And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve’” (18:29). And another: “There is no compulsion in religion. Right guidance has become distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in false gods and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold…” (2:256). Meaning that stripping away freedom of choice, from a legislative standpoint, amounts to an assault on the very boundaries meant to organize relations among people.

If we translate this created freedom of choice into political thought, we find that our understanding of it prevents us from practicing the suppression of freedoms, because that amounts to trespassing on a matter of creation tied to divine will — and in this lies pure absurdity. It is naive and foolish for a person to stand against a divine decree or divine will, because he will never be able to resist or change it — he would be like someone trying to fold up the sun so that it rises for us in the west or the south instead. But if someone tries to do so anyway — and such attempts have been made throughout history, everywhere — he creates an unhealthy atmosphere marked by suppression, oppression, injustice, feelings of abasement and humiliation, hatred, conspiracy, and instability, and so on. Attempts to deprive people of their freedom of choice have never succeeded in enduring, and have always generated reactions of various kinds, ending in change.

Islamically, the reason is clear: an assault on freedom of choice is an assault on something natural, built into the human being by creation, which generates a contradiction between the natural and the social. And since the natural is deeply rooted, the human being, whether he likes it or not, will inevitably rebel against whatever contradicts his nature, however long it takes. A social practice — in this case, despotism and tyranny — may last a long time, but it will never last forever, and its contradictions with what is natural will remain a source of problems, burdens, and pain. However much force a ruler or official uses to stand against what human nature has been fashioned upon, his rule will not endure. This means the factors pushing toward alignment with what is natural remain active and powerful, and never disappear or die out.

Here lies an important axis of difference between Islam and democracy. Democracy explains its own development as the product of dynamic, vital, and intricately interwoven historical, social, economic, and political interactions, tied to the development of human thought, which has come to realize, across the ages, that a system of reconciliation and tolerance is far superior to systems of ideology, single-man rule, and the domination of one opinion over others. Based on this explanation, which takes historical dimensions and human consciousness as its basic pillars in explaining political phenomena, democracy builds its institutions and writes its constitutions, laws, and instructions. Islam, if its adherents want to succeed, must build its institutions in a different way, because its philosophical starting points differ. What suits the controls and instructions of a foundation resting on a social dimension does not suit a foundation resting on other dimensions.

But Islam has not ignored human consciousness — it paired it with the matter of creation through legislation. Legislation has left the human being free to choose between faith and unbelief, monotheism and polytheism, guidance and error, while holding him responsible for that choice. Islam set out instructions, controls, incentives, and deterrents concerning the various states of human conduct, and encouraged the human being to exercise caution and to reflect on various proofs and rulings, so as to be capable of forming an opinion governing his conduct — conduct that may lead him to success in this world and the next, or success in this world and loss in the next, or loss in both. This means the Islamic legislator worked to spur the Muslim toward accumulating the awareness that guides orientations and justifies actions. This is clear, for instance, in Surat al-Naba, which states: “And We built above you seven strong [heavens], and made [therein] a burning lamp, and sent down, from the rain clouds, pouring water, that We may bring forth thereby grain and vegetation” (78:12-15), and in Surahs al-Infitar, al-Takwir, Abasa, and others. There are many verses speaking of the merits of faith and the ills of unbelief and disobedience.

Islam pairs creation with legislation, the objective — which is God’s will — with human consciousness, which is meant to accumulate until it grasps the objective, supporting both creation and legislation. Democracy does not do this, and ignores the question of creation altogether. The difference here is clear in the depth of the argument: Islam does not subject the matter of freedom of choice to social conditions and changing circumstances, yet it does not leave the human being like a beast driven along without knowledge or awareness — it addresses him rationally, so that he becomes aware of how to organize his life across its various levels. The intensity of that awareness may shift and change over time, according to circumstances, but freedom of choice remains standing even amid the harshest periods of human backwardness. Democracy, by contrast, sets no natural standard for human freedom of choice, leaving the matter within a historical-social context exposed to change and alteration. So which of the two systems offers the fuller guarantee of this freedom? And which, accordingly, can more readily open its heart to broader freedoms?

Islam’s pairing of creation and legislation, in order to entrench both the objective and the subjective, is both logical and rational at once. God is the creator of this universe, and He is the one who perfected the creation of everything according to precise laws that complement one another, forming an integrated whole in both its material and spiritual aspects. It is a universe whose components do not contradict one another but are in harmony, forming a system whose parts, though distinct, are inseparable. The human being is part of this universe, and the laws governing his physical and spiritual existence must necessarily be consistent with the various cosmic laws, not contradicting them. This means that in his various material, mental, and psychological activities, the human being remains within the general cosmic framework God perfected in His making. For this reason, legislation cannot possibly contradict the laws God, glory be to Him, created — it must fall within the optimal framework that places the human being within the wheel of cosmic harmony.

Legislation is described here as subjective, not because it admits of change and alteration, but because its application is entrusted to the human being. It is subjective because human independent reasoning is applied to it, and because the human being has the choice between applying it or abandoning it. Through legislation, God, glory be to Him, tells the human being: this is the divine legislation, consistent with the cosmic laws, and he may apply it if he wishes, knowing that his choice carries consequences. If the human being follows the legislation, he will be in harmony with himself and with the world outside himself, because legislation reflects the concord that must exist between the human being’s own inner energies, and between them and the world outside himself, thereby achieving natural accord and harmony. This means the human being acts naturally when he adheres to the legislation, and this is his freedom, while he departs from the nature he was created upon if he violates the legislation, thereby binding himself and standing against his own freedom.

But there remains a problem related to the interpretation of the legislation. Legislation is textually absolute, because it comes from God, glory be to Him, while the human being is relative, and the relative cannot grasp the absolute. I hope no one rushes to say this is a mistaken statement and objects that the relative can grasp the absolute. Physically and from the standpoint of faith, this cannot happen. Physically, the relative belongs to a world of different dimensions from the absolute; and from the standpoint of faith, this would diminish the possessor of absolute wisdom, glory, and mercy, who is God, glory be to Him. At best, the relative insists on developing his knowledge so that he draws, little by little, closer to grasping the absolute — a grasp that will never be complete within the human dimension except on the Day of Judgment. For this reason, the Noble Qur’an abounds in commands to contemplate, reflect, observe, and reason, and never commanded the human being to stop searching and investigating, as though the truth, in all its details, had already become fully available in his hands. However much human knowledge and understanding expand, and however numerous his tools become, there will always remain before him a great deal that never ends. God, exalted is He, says: “Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?” — a clear indication that those who refrain from reflecting on the Qur’an (that is, studying it and pondering it deeply) are like cattle, understanding nothing.

Islam is dualistic in its unity, and in this it differs from every philosophy I know of. Islam unites the natural and the social, the absolute and the relative, the created and the legislated, the individual and the collective, the internal and the external, the objective and the subjective. No religion can be a religion without this unification, because the Creator does not plant contradictions incapable of achieving harmony.

Freedom

It has now become easy to define freedom in Islam, based on the basic premises noted above, both created and legislated. Within the verse that says, “Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth exalts God,” the human being is free in his unity with the universe outside himself. That is, freedom is the unity of the subjective and the objective. It is the freedom that achieves harmony: harmony between human conduct and the human being’s own objective creation, and harmony between the subjective human being and the objective world outside the human self. When a person achieves internal unity and unity with the external world, he is freed from contradiction and becomes fully free. This is the theoretical side; in practice, the human being advances gradually toward achieving freedom, according to the accumulation of his knowledge and scientific understanding, which forms a fundamental standard for the advancement of his awareness of what perfection ought to be. The human being will never achieve perfection, and will therefore never achieve absolute freedom, but if he takes Islam as a religion of knowledge and action, adopting the inductive method as a means toward understanding and developing his own reality, he continues advancing toward the degree of perfection.

If this freedom, and the premises it rests on, is compared with the premises democracy rests on, one can conclude that freedom in Islam is more firmly established and deeply rooted than in democracy, and that Islam, in practical reality, therefore grants spaces of freedom broader than those granted by democracy. This is what this part explains.

But before proceeding to the explanation, let me note that the word “freedom” (hurriyah) does not appear in the Noble Qur’an — rather, the word “muharraran” (“dedicated/set free”) appears, when the wife of Imran vowed what was in her womb to God: “…My Lord, indeed I have vowed to You what is in my womb, dedicated [in Your service]…” There is no problem in the idea of freedom not being raised directly, because Islam came to liberate the human being from every worldly, unnatural restraint, so that he remains within the framework of accord with the universe — which we might call the sole worship of God. This may be what Umar ibn al-Khattab meant when he said: “Since when have you enslaved people, when their mothers bore them free?” The human being was born free by creation, and it is impermissible to trespass against God’s creation. So instead of the human being being a slave to a person, an appetite, a tribe, or a need, Islam came to free him from all of this, so that, through his faith, he could unbind these restraints and remain within the natural framework of which God, glory be to Him, says: “And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.”

I have not found, in the Islamic literature, a focus on this matter, and I have found some contradictions. For instance, one writer says Islam does not give freedom, based on the saying: “Indeed, the religion in the sight of God is Islam,” while another says Islam gives a wide field of freedoms, based on the verse: “Whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve,” or based on the verse “and their affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves.” One takes hold of one part, the other of another part, and so a contradiction appears between them.

This reflects a crisis in Islamic thought, in that many Muslim writers take hold of particulars without the comprehensiveness of the Qur’anic argument, and a number of them focus on jurisprudence rather than thought, or on questions of permitted and forbidden rather than questions of right and wrong.

Some Muslim readers may find the theoretical discussion of the basic premises beautiful and good, and may take pleasure in the idea that Islam philosophically surpasses the arguments of democracy — but do they accept the practical implications of these arguments? There is a real problem here, in the gap between the beautiful theoretical argument and an actual practice inconsistent with it. For instance, a Muslim might say that Islam has honored women and secured their rights, and therefore confined them within the walls of the house to preserve their honor. The first part of the sentence is very beautiful; the second part contradicts the first. Among the glaring examples is that recorded sermon in which the imam says Islam has done justice to women, citing one woman so entirely committed that she left her house only twice: once to go to her marital home, and once to go to her grave.

Before speaking about the practical implications, let me remind the reader that the sole guarantee for the continuation of Islamic rule is the establishment of justice. If justice is absent, Muslim rule is absent, however many methods of force are used to suppress opponents; and if justice is established, Islamic rule continues, however wide the margin of freedoms and however great the aggression of others.

What follows is a brief discussion of some important elements of practical application:

First: Freedom of Expression

There is nothing in the Noble Qur’an or the Prophetic Sunnah that suggests, even remotely, any restriction on freedom of expression, whether spoken, written, or gestural. On the contrary, there are many verses and indications requiring the human being to express his opinion, to argue and discuss any subject he wishes, and the Prophetic biography contains no indication of any prohibition on expressing an opinion. There are no restrictions, conditions, or obstacles in the Qur’an or the Sunnah on disclosing an opinion and putting it forward for deliberation before those deliberating. This does not apply only to the human being — the matter extends to include Iblis (Satan) himself. Consider, for instance, the following verses: “[God] said, ‘O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant, or were you among the exalted?’ He said, ‘I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay.’ [God] said, ‘Then get out of Paradise, for indeed, you are expelled. And indeed, upon you is My curse until the Day of Judgment.’ He said, ‘My Lord, then reprieve me until the Day they are resurrected.’ [God] said, ‘So indeed, you are of those reprieved, until the Day of the time well-known.’ [Iblis] said, ‘By your might, I will surely mislead them all, except, among them, Your chosen servants’” (38:75-83). And consider the dialogue in these verses: “[Iblis] said, ‘Reprieve me until the Day they are resurrected.’ [God] said, ‘Indeed, you are of those reprieved.’ [Iblis] said, ‘Because You have put me in error, I will surely sit in wait for them on Your straight path. Then I will come to them from before them and from behind them and on their right and on their left, and You will not find most of them grateful [to You]’” (7:14-17).

If God gave Iblis a reprieve and time, as long as this worldly life endures, to do as he sees fit, including misleading people who are supposed to obey God and follow His commandments, can there possibly be restrictions on human freedom of expression? The field is entirely open before the human being, including attempting to produce verses or a surah of his own in challenge to the Qur’an. The verse states: “And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant, then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than God, if you should be truthful” (2:23). Another verse affirms: “Or do they say, ‘He invented it’? Say, ‘Then bring forth a surah like it and call upon whomever you can, besides God, if you should be truthful’” (10:38). This means the human being possesses freedom — indeed, he is invited to try to compose a surah, and to mobilize whomever he can find fitting to accomplish that composition. The field is entirely open for expression, without the slightest kind of suppression or oppression. Nor does the matter stop there — the human being also has the opportunity to defend gods he believes in and to argue in order to convince others of them.

God did not ask Muslims to suppress non-Muslims, or to stand between them and expressing their thoughts and opinions, but asked them to argue with non-Muslims and to present proofs and evidence for the truth of what they say. This means the responsibility falls on Muslims to convince non-Muslims through proof and argument, and it is impermissible for Muslims to substitute this commandment with suppressing others and blocking their expression of it. God, exalted is He, says: “O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light” (4:174). And He also says: “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided” (16:125). And He says: “Say, ‘O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you — that we will not worship except God and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of God.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]’” (3:64).

According to these verses, suppressing others’ opinions is a sin no Muslim is permitted to commit. This is so because suppression disables the human energies and capacities God has deposited in His servants, capacities that justify the human being’s bearing responsibility for what he says and does. If people are suppressed, they are deprived of hearing various arguments and points of view, and deprived of the opportunity to test the strength of their own opinions, and how close or far they are from the truth. And if the human being loses the opportunity for expression, he resorts to working secretly and underground to create an atmosphere in which he can exercise his human energies, exposing Muslims and non-Muslims alike to a state of instability and conflicts that could turn bloody.

In any case, this is a matter that ought to be settled implicitly through creation itself, in that God created people with freedom of choice built into them, and choice is itself a form of expression, whether verbal, manual, mechanical, or gestural, and so on.

Second: Freedom of Belief

There is not a single proof in the Noble Qur’an that forces people to follow a particular religion or compels them to apply a particular legal code. Logically, if belief were compulsory, accountability and punishment would be nullified, and there would be no believers and non-believers by choice. But God did not wish to make all people a single nation, and left every person to decide which community he belongs to, according to His saying: “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming what preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what God has revealed, and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had God willed, He would have made you one nation, but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To God is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ” (5:48). And according to His saying: “But if God had willed, they would not have associated. And We have not appointed you over them as a guardian” (6:107). And according to the saying: “But if they turn away — then We have not sent you over them as a guardian; upon you is only [the duty of] notification…” (42:48).

These verses, and others, affirm the human being’s freedom to choose the belief that appeals to him, without pursuit, harassment, or persecution. Muslims, following the example of the command directed at the noble Messenger, must convey the call and explain their belief without any repressive follow-through.

Third: Freedom to Form an Opinion

In Islam, the human being does not enjoy only freedom of expressing an opinion, but also the right to form an opinion through the possibility of accessing various information from various sources. The human being has the right to survey and become acquainted with various opinions, points of view, and various facts that may be available regarding various issues. Regarding what is stated in the Noble Qur’an, God, glory and exaltation be to Him, says: “Indeed, those who conceal what God has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price — those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And God will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment” (2:174). And He says: “Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture — those are cursed by God and cursed by those who curse” (2:159).

Based on this, one can conclude that it is impermissible to withhold the truth from people, and that facts must be within everyone’s reach. A Muslim, for example, cannot form a sound opinion if he does not have access to various pieces of information, and an opinion based on certain facts to the exclusion of others, or on incomplete information, remains a weak opinion, easily collapsed or liable to lead its holder to failure. This means Muslim society must, first, work to present the Qur’an fully, without manipulation and without focusing on some verses to the exclusion of others, and second, provide opportunities to access facts from various parties and opinions. No Muslim has the right to conceal one verse in favor of another, and no one has the right to conceal one fact in favor of another.

What does this mean at the level of publishing and journalism? It means that a publishing house, newspaper, or magazine may not reflect a single point of view alone — it must open its pages and activities to everyone. There may well be partisan press or a partisan publishing house, but it is not Islamic to prevent the publication of differing or opposing views. It may belong to a particular party in terms of ownership, but it does not have the right to withhold information from people. This principle applies to the newspaper and magazine vendor and to the book distributor as well, who must carry or display every published source of knowledge before the public, which has the right to choose. Given this, it is quite possible that partisan press would disappear under an Islamic system, because it would have no practical meaning. Since it is prohibited for a newspaper, whatever its coloring, to withhold the truth or prevent other opinions from appearing on its pages, the practical value of biased partisan press promoting one idea over another shrinks to a minimum. And this applies to all media.

Here lies a vast and enormous difference between Islam and democracy. Democracy sanctions distinctly partisan press, and sanctions bias in the various media. Beyond this, Islam cannot sanction the domination of a particular class, such as the wealthy class, over the media, while in democratic states the wealthy do dominate the media and practice cultural, educational, and marketing despotism through it. As for any media outlets claiming to be Islamic that practice single-angle media coverage, those running them ought to reexamine their own Islamic values.

From this we can also conclude that intellectual terrorism is forbidden in Islam. It is impermissible to prevent a person from expressing his opinion, or from forming an opinion of his own, or to deprive him of access to sources of information and to what is or could be made available from various sources. For this reason, it is impermissible for a holder of a dissenting opinion to be subjected to suppression, whether through social defamation, physical harm, dismissal from employment, or any other method. Islam came to liberate people, not to enslave them, and to demonstrate the truth in confrontation with falsehood, not to squander the opportunities for confrontation between truth and falsehood. Nor is there any clerical guardianship in Islam, nor any divine mandate granting anyone the right to terrorize people and use instruments of repression against them.

Fourth: Freedom of Organization

Organization divides into two main types regarding public matters of concern to the public or any sector of it: organization aimed at achieving limited goals or interests without seeking control over the nation and the management of its affairs — what is called a pressure group or a specific-interest group — and organization that seeks to manage political and public affairs, or to manage the nation itself.

What governs the matter of organization is the Muslim’s ultimate purpose: establishing the Islamic nation (ummah) through which he can apply the matters of his religion and advance both in faith and materially. Through the nation, opportunities for collective work are realized, work that leads to progress, giving, and building, and to presenting a social and human model to the non-Muslim world. A Muslim’s Islam is not complete without the Islamic nation, because it protects belief and practice through the practical model it establishes. For this reason, preserving the nation stands at the top of a Muslim’s priorities. This preservation comes about through both internal and external causes. Internally, Muslims must steer clear of administrative corruption, the suppression of opinions, economic monopoly, the persecution of non-Muslims, and everything that could undermine the pillars of internal cohesion — that is, they must establish justice. Externally, a Muslim must defend against every force seeking to demolish the Islamic nation and replace it with another nation.

Defending the nation, or the political system, is not a uniquely Islamic trait — this is the condition of every system. There is no system that does not put in place a mechanism to defend itself, including the democratic system. The democratic system does not accept its own abolition or removal, even through elections. There are many examples of democrats trespassing against the results of democratic elections because they feared the abolition of the system they believe in. This does not mean it is permissible for Muslims to trespass against election results, falsifying or annulling them — rather, Muslims must preserve their own entity through a convincing, constructive method, not through an imposed method that assaults the freedoms of others.

Accordingly, it is permissible for organizations not seeking to undermine the nation to be formed, in order to achieve specific interests for the nation or for any group living within the nation, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, provided their goal does not contradict the nation’s ethics. For instance, Christians have the right to organize their own religious affairs, but companies do not have the right to organize their affairs with the aim of monopolizing a particular commodity or service. But it is not permitted for parties to arise whose goal is aggression against the Islamic nation and its forcible replacement with another nation. Such parties negate the Muslim’s very purpose and work to demolish the Islamic life he is supposed to establish. This means that permitting parties hostile to the nation to operate with the aim of abolishing the system is a non-Islamic act. This means that non-Islamic organization is not forbidden, insofar as it is consistent with human creation, provided it is not aggressive — just as Muslims themselves are not aggressors. This is clear in God’s granting Iblis permission to mobilize every possible means to reach His servants. The safety valve for Muslims is not preventing others — since that pushes them toward secret organization — but applying God’s law, which establishes justice and frees others from any grounds for backing and support.

Here it is worth distinguishing between organization within a nation operating under the Islamic system, and a nation led by an Islamic government that does not operate under the Islamic system. It is possible for a democratic system to produce an Islamic government through the ballot box. In this case, Muslims must respect the system whose mechanisms brought them to power, because they are an Islamic government within a democratic nation. When Muslims decided to contest elections, they did so with prior knowledge that the system through which they operate is not an Islamic system, and they did so based on an implicit or explicit agreement with the other parties and with the people within the system that the system’s rules must be respected. This means Muslims’ acceptance of the premises of the democratic system constitutes a covenant they must abide by — not merely out of mutual respect among the various parties, but because Islam insists on honoring covenants and pledges. God, exalted and glorified, says, for instance: “Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of God and those who gave shelter and aided — they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate — for you there is no guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help from you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty. And God is Seeing of what you do” (8:72). And a verse states: “And do not approach the property of an orphan, except in the way that is best, until he reaches maturity. And fulfill [every] commitment. Indeed, the commitment is ever [that about which one will be] questioned” (17:34). There are many verses affirming the honoring of covenants and pledges. Muslims can turn the democratic system into an Islamic one through their own good conduct, and by returning to the Noble Qur’an to understand that Islam is a religion of liberation, not a religion of coercive clericalism.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “الحرية في الفكر الإسلامي: دراسة فكرية” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.