At the Second Pledge of al-‘Aqabah, amid an exceptionally precarious security situation in which no Muslim could feel safe, neither for his life nor his property, the Prophet PBUH laid the foundation stone for a representative electoral system, commanding the pilgrims of the Ansar to choose their Representatives.
The truthful and trustworthy Prophet, he who “does he speak of his own whims, for it is only a revelation sent down ˹to him˺” [Al-Najm: 3–4], could have resorted to the logic of “State of Emergency,” all the more so while enjoying a lofty representational status that entitled him to monopolize the representation of the believers, “The Prophet has a stronger affinity to the believers than they do themselves” [Al-Ahzab: 6]. He could have said: I am unlike any of you; I am divinely supported in the exclusive conveyance of God’s message. Yet, he did not.
And when a woman delegate came to him, in the presence of his Companions, asking what the daughters of Adam and Eve have before the Lord of men and women, the delegate was exercising a representative function that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, acknowledged.
When the Prophet said, as the people stood on the threshold of the Badr test, “Offer me your counsel, O people,” he was announcing a foundational function of the representative system. And although he was the obeyed commander, capable of issuing firm commands based on what the Lord revealed to him, he did not.
And when Al-Hubab asked, “Is this a position in which God has commanded you to stay, such that we may not advance nor retreat, or is it opinion, strategy, and planning?”, consultation came as an upward initiative that did not wait for a request or permission, and the Prophet sanctioned this initiative.
And when his Companions advised him to march out to Uhud, though he disliked it, their consultation was also upward in nature; and he could have, as one who commands and forbids by God’s will, refrained from acting upon it, yet he acted in order to entrench the legitimacy of initiating consultation and acting upon it, lest anyone around him, or those who would come after him, imagine that he was above it.
And when the Prophet said to his Companions, “You are more knowledgeable about your worldly affairs,” he was expanding the domain of human judgement in worldly matters.
And when the first Caliph rose to address the people, saying, “O people, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, help me, if I deviate, correct me… Obey me as long as I obey God and His Messenger, but if I disobey God and His Messenger, then you owe me no obedience,” he was laying, after the cessation of revelation, the foundations of popular oversight over the actions of the ruler. This is a function repeatedly affirmed by the Prophet himself, for he accepted the principle of accountability and even defended it, he who was the trustworthy, truthful Messenger whose obedience God linked to faith:
“But no! By your Lord, they will never be ˹true˺ believers until they accept you ˹O Prophet˺ as the judge in their disputes, and find no resistance within themselves against your decision and submit wholeheartedly.” [Al-Nisa’: 65]
Between those definitive texts and those historical “events” and their numerous counterparts in the Prophetic and Rashidun eras, emerged the foundations of a representative system that legitimized groups’ selection of representatives for themselves, and established the obligation, or rather the imposition, upon the ruler to empower those “elected” / advisors to perform their duties, chief among them the right to initiate consultation and to take the initiative in it without being asked or requested.
God prescribed Shura even upon the best of His Prophets, the one enriched by divine revelation. And if it were conceivable for Shura to be waived for any ruler due to sound judgment or strength of authority, then it would have been more fitting to be waived for the infallible Prophet guided by revelation. Yet God addressed him saying:
“It is out of Allah’s mercy that you ˹O Prophet˺ have been lenient with them. Had you been cruel or hard-hearted, they would have certainly abandoned you. So pardon them, ask Allah’s forgiveness for them, and consult with them in ˹conducting˺ matters. Once you make a decision, put your trust in Allah. Surely Allah loves those who trust in Him.” [Al-‘Imran: 159]
Thus, no one after him may disable this function, which God placed for the believers alongside two central pillars: prayer, which is pure devotion relating to the body and heart, and Zakah (Almsgiving), which is an act of worship relating to wealth and extending benefit to people. It is as though the placement of Shura between these two obligations signals that Shura is an act of worship with both devotional dimensions: a right owed to God and a right owed to God’s servants. And this affirms its obligatory nature:
“Those who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and spend from what We have provided for them” [Al-Shura: 38]
The Qur’an has also related to us two models of consultation:
- The Balqis model, based on “She said, «O chiefs! Advise me in this matter of mine, for I would never make any decision without you. »” [al-Naml: 32]
- And the other, a deceptive model that was in truth a disguised tyranny whose mask soon fell, for Pharaoh said to his council: “Pharaoh said to the chiefs around him, “He is indeed a skilled magician, who seeks to drive you from your land by his magic. So what do you propose?” [al-Shu‘ara’: 34–35]. The Pharaoh issued his judgment beforehand, nullifying the purpose of consultation. He then said: “I am telling you only what I believe, and I am leading you only to the way of guidance”. [Ghafir: 29], and even went beyond that by saying: “I am your Lord Most High.”
***
These are guiding markers by which we attempt to ground aspects of contemporary democratic practice, now embodied in what are called Parliaments, Peoples’ Assemblies, National Assemblies, Councils of the Ummah, Shura Councils, Houses of Representatives, Senates, and the like. More than that, we also seek to remind ourselves of the deep historical rootedness of the representative system and its core functions in the history of the Islamic Ummah.
It is true that we copied and adopted democratic systems thinking others preceded us, and perhaps they did in form and some applications. But in essence, they are, as the Arabic proverb goes, “our goods have been returned to us”. We were centuries ahead of the emergence of the Bill of Rights (1689), Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1690), Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws (1748), and Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762).
And the ancientness of our electoral and consultative heritage imposes upon us a doubled responsibility to perform our representative functions in the best manner.
These systems and practices, for us and for others, are humble human conventions. In them, peoples and nations stand nearly equal regardless of religious or cultural classification. At that level we share with others an obligatory portion of universal human values. Yet we possess distinctions that should grant us a higher degree of motivation, effectiveness, and capacity to influence.
We are distinct in our belonging to the Islamic Ummah which is unique in having a divine frame of reference for its representative systems (despite their various forms and labels) and in their functions and practices. A Muslim representative (regardless of his functional title) is, like his counterparts worldwide, a delegate of his people, accountable to them, employed by them. But he is, or ought to be, accountable before his Creator at a higher level, worshipping God through the fulfillment of his representative duties, following the example of the Prophet and the first generation of the Ummah’s leaders, advisors, and decision-making councils. The representative performs a civic and political function on one hand, and on the other, simultaneously, a devotional function whose neglect he fears and whose proper performance he hopes will earn divine reward.
Another level of distinction is that the representatives of the Ummah, collectively, at the level of the Parliamentary Union of the OIC Member States, constitute a formidable moral, quantitative, and political force, as they represent the voices of one-quarter of humanity, belonging to a geographical expanse that covers roughly one-quarter of the earth’s landmass. Moreover, the Islamic world occupies a strategic central position between Asia, Africa, and Europe, with a growing demographic presence across the remaining continents. Furthermore, it overlooks the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, the Mediterranean Sea, and contains within it major strategic waterways such as the Gulf, the Suez Canal, Bab al-Mandeb, Gibraltar, and the Strait of Hormuz. Six OIC States are among the world’s 20 largest by area; eight are among the 20 most populous; three are among the world’s 29 largest economies; eleven are among the top 20 oil producers; twelve among the top 20 gas producers; and eight among the top 20 gold-producing nations. Even militarily, seven are within the top 26 global powers, five of which surpass the Zionist state according to these indices.
By another measure, the PUIC is effectively the world’s second-largest parliamentary bloc after the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
With this combination of attributes, divine reference, social contract, and modern civic organization, universal human values, quantitative and qualitative weight, and the distinguishing features of the Islamic Ummah, it becomes evident that the representatives of the Ummah possess levers of power which, if wisely utilized, could grant us significant capacity to reform our condition and influence our vast human environment. The question is: Is there a way to that?
Certainly, this question must first and especially be posed to the executive authorities, the makers of political decisions. Yet it is also a question directed to legislative chambers, consultative councils, and similar institutions, even in non-parliamentary systems, insofar as these bodies possess the capacity to represent their peoples, and indeed represent the Ummah.
The world has undergone major changes in recent years, and is poised to witness more transformations, perhaps tumultuous ones. The “Al-Aqsa Flood” launched by the resistance, and the ensuing flood of blood and destruction unleashed by the Zionist war machine, have contributed to a major shift in global public opinion, especially in the West. Western public mobilization became impactful in governmental political dynamics, prompting several States to recognize the State of Palestine. Parliamentary and political voices in the West openly affirmed the Palestinian people’s right to life. Maritime solidarity flotillas departed from various Western countries in support of our cause. The election of the first Muslim mayor of New York, years after London elected its first Muslim mayor, and the rise of nearly 40 Muslims in the November 2025 U.S. elections, were among the indicators of these new shifts. We now possess an additional external lever of power made possible by this unprecedented global moral awakening. And it has become essential to invest this lever in activating and enhancing the impact of our other internal strengths.
Representative bodies, individually, at the level of each State of the Ummah, can fulfill their functions with fewer constraints than those binding the executive authorities. Governments have their logic and calculations; it is important that they find beside them legislative bodies and consultative councils that carry the logic of the peoples in its clarity and purity, helping create balance and alleviating governments, especially from external pressures, that may drive them away from “the logic of the street” and its pulse. We must strive to generate this internal transformation, not necessarily through the logic of adversarial opposition, which often leads to conflict and confrontation, but through the logic of sincere counsel, free of deceit or injustice. The contemporary copied and imported model of democracy placed us within a rigid binary cage, leading us to believe that there is no path to political action outside it: Either opposition, seeing everything through black lenses, perceiving only absolute evil, or unconditional support, seeing government actions through rose-colored lenses, perceiving only absolute good. Yet the original edition of our representative/Shura-based system in our history and culture offers us a different pair of lenses, ones that grant us the ability to discern colors and nuances. Carrying such lenses may be difficult for those unaccustomed to them, but with a little effort and patience we can learn to use them, and help those around us understand that viewing through them is better than viewing through any other, and that by means of these lenses we perform our duty with greater integrity and a higher sense of responsibility, something far more beneficial and lasting for political decision-makers.
This applies at the level of every House or Council, and indeed every representative of the people. But on the collective level that transcends borders, parliaments, acting together, can achieve a greater success in serving the Ummah and supporting its causes, foremost among them is the Palestinian cause and the issues of Muslim minorities. They can also adopt more effective approaches in combating Islamophobia, dispelling the suspicions cast upon the noble religion, and deterring the forces that persist in deriding and desecrating the sacred.
Our parliaments, acting collectively through the Parliamentary Union of the OIC Member States, in solidarity among themselves, and through the investment of the internal and external sources of strength, both inherent and contextual, which we have alluded to, will be able to make the voice of the Ummah heard, assert its inviolability, and contribute to reclaiming its rights through the power of persuasion in dialogue with other regional and international parliamentary blocs, with the parliaments of dominant major powers, and even with societal forces that shape opinion and partially hold the reins of decision-making such as active organizations and bodies in the political, media, economic, and cultural spheres.
And while we must employ, in our dialogue with others, especially in the West, the shared foundational values, the historical truths, and the lived, tangible evidences, it is equally our duty and our right to employ in this dialogue the logic of pure interest, mutual interest, to make others understand that their interests with a two-billion-strong Ummah, with all that it possesses in advantages, particularities, resources, and capacities, are far greater than their interests with any other State, regardless of its power, let alone with the Zionist entity, which has proven in its very inception, throughout its history, and in its present practices that it stands in opposition not merely to the Muhammadan Ummah but to humanity itself, for it stands in opposition to all universal human values.
In general, our parliaments are collectively are called upon today, by the compelling voice of painful realities and of promising opportunities, to be among the makers of global transformation, to push the nations of the Ummah to move from the realm of mere reaction and passive influence to the realm of action and meaningful impact, so that they may safeguard their existence and dignity, and contribute to building a new world order that is more just and fair than the one that has wounded the Ummah deeply, in both the distant and the recent past, and is on the verge of wounding it even more if we remain lagging behind, clinging to the idol of fragmentation and weakness, God forbid.