2.8-The Decision- Making Process Between Shura .pdf

7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences

“ASEAN 2015: Challenges and Opportunities” (Proceedings)

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, June 5-6, 2015 245

The Decision- Making Process between Shura (Mutual

Consultation) and the Malaysian Parliament: A

Comparative Study

1. Mohd Kamarul Amree Bin Mohd Sarkam, Faculty of Defence Studies and

Management,National Defence University of Malaysia,ungai Besi Camp, 57000 Kuala

Lumpur,[email protected]

2. Burhanuddin Bin Jalal, Assoc Prof. Dr. Faculty of Defence Studies and

Management,National Defence University of Malaysia, Sungai Besi Camp, 57000 Kuala

Lumpur, [email protected]

3. Redwan Bin Yasin, Faculty of Defence Studies and Management, National Defence

University of Malaysia, Sungai Besi Camp, 57000 Kuala Lumpur ,

[email protected]

Abstract

Decision-making process can be regarded as the cognitive progression among

people in order to achieve good result. Every decision-making process produces a final

option that may or may not prompt action. Thus, this conceptual paper will compare

and analyze the decision-making process between two extraordinary political systems

namely shura (mutual consultation) and the Malaysian Parliament. The practice of

mutual consultation or shura formed an integral part of early Islamic governance since

the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.). Given the fact that the practice of shura is mandated in

the Qur’an and the Sunnah, Muslim leaders are under the irrefutable obligation to

conduct state affairs through shura. Any Muslim government which has pledged itself to

adhere to the principles of Islamic governance must consult with the acknowledged

experts in their respective fields in order to arrive at the best possible solution to the

matter of question. Meanwhile, The Malaysian Parliament constitutes a democratic

political institution which synchronizes the aspirations of a united Malaysian people. It

can be recognized as the institution that ensures that the government remains

accountable to all citizens and answerable for its actions and inactions. However, the

question that arises at this point is whether there are similarities and differences from

both systems in the decision-making process. Are the leaders from both systems– after

duly consulting with the respective members of their council– bound to follow the

decision reached by consensus or not? Therefore, a systematic comparative study is

highly needed in order to identify solutions to this matter which is based on two

different fundamental perspectives. Hence, a comparative study between the two

institutions in general and decision-making process in particular provides the basis for

a subsequent evaluation of research findings with the aim to propose better solutions

on this matter in the future.

Keywords: Institution, democratic, shura, respective, evaluation




1. Introduction

Decision-making process can be defined as the process of choosing what to do by

considering possible consequences of different choices (Brockman & Russel, 2009). It

also can be defined as the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the

values and preferences of the decision maker. Making a decision implies that there are

alternative choices to be considered and to choose the one that best fits with the goals,

objectives, desires, values and so on (Harris, 1980).

In the political sphere, decision-making process is the essential tool to ponder a

deliberate action for the people. Every decision-making process in the political arena

produces a final option that may or may not prompt action. Thus, this conceptual paper

will compare and analyze the decision-making process between two extraordinary

political systems namely shura (mutual consultation) and the Malaysian Parliament as

well as to provide best solutions over this matter in the future.

2. The Concept of Shura and its Fundamental Principles

2.1 . Definition of Shura

The Arabic term shura has multiple meanings. Its many literal meanings vary

from ‘to deploy honey from the wax disc’, ‘to scan the human body while buying’ to ‘to

review oneself in the battlefield’. (Al-Khalidi, 1980). However, the nominal usage of the

word shura is commonly understood to mean ‘mutual consultation’. Many

terminological definitions of shura were proposed by classical Muslim scholars and

later by contemporary Muslim scholars. Ibn ‘Arabi (1957) for instance defined it as “a

group meeting on a matter whereby each member consults and seeks advice from the

other”. According to Al-Tabarsi (1886) it means the act of “exchanging of opinions

through dialogue in order to obtain the truth”. Among the more contemporary Muslim

scholars are to be mentioned Isma‘il al-Badawi (1994) who defined shura as “to refer

certain matters to a group of experts, so that they may share their ideas and thoughts,

eventually bringing them closest to the truth”.

In the context of this research, shura is understood as a tool of deliberate action

to protect public interests and resolve public issues. In this sense, shura serves a similar

function of that of the Malaysian Parliament as a representative forum for debates over

matters of public interest.




2.2 . Legal Basis or Evidence on Shura

The practice of mutual consultation can be referred to in two Qur’anic verses which

address the practice of mutual consultation referred to as shura. The first mention is

made in Al ‘Imran verse 159:

“It is part of the Mercy of Allah that thou dost deal gently with them wart thou severe or

harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so pass over (their faults),

and ask for Allah’s forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then,

when thou have taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. Verily, Allah loves those who put

their trust (in Him)”.

The containing verse was reportedly revealed after the crushing Muslim defeat

at Uhud after which Allah commanded the Prophet (s.a.w.) to forgive those of his

companions who were responsible for it. Before the battle the Prophet (s.a.w.) had

consulted his companions over the battle strategy. It had been the Prophet’s own view

to remain in Medinah while most of the companions suggested to seek battle outside the

city. Needless to say that this was a case of shura and that the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself

respected it (Al-Ansari, 1996).

The second Quranic verse that addressed shura directly is contained in a surah

commonly referred to al-Shura verse 38 and referring to its practice as one of the

characteristics of a righteous community:

“Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular prayer; who conduct their

affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what we bestow on them for sustenance”.

This verse was revealed to the Ansar community in Madinah who had embraced

the Prophet’s mission wholeheartedly and transformed their society to become a model

society (Al-Zuhaili, 2005). Thus, these two Qur’anic verses are evidence that shura or

mutual consultation constitutes the most respectable and effective means of achieving

consensus in a community and ensuring that once a decision is agreed upon, it will be

supported by all because it is the end result of a combined effort of fruitful discussion

and debate.




The Prophetic Sunnah constitutes the second source of Islamic law. Among the

Prophet’s sayings related to matters of mutual consultation is in the following Hadith

narrated by Ibn ‘Umar (r.a.):

“Whoever wanted to solve the matters, do a consultation!, Perhaps there is an

emergence of assistance to solve the matters” (Al-Alusi, 1926).

The Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) urged his followers to adhere to the practice of

shura in any arising matter of communal concern. He also explained the reason and the

benefit of doing so, namely “the emergence of assistance” by which he meant that

shared ideas and open discussion would allow them to arrive at the best possible

solution together. Another hadith was narrated by Abu Hurayrah (r.a.) according to

which the Prophet (s.a.w.) was reported to have said: “Mutual consultation is reliable”

(Sunan Abu Dawud, 1965). In other words, the practice of mutual consultation brings

about results which are to be trusted in terms of their correctness and efficiency.

2.3 . The Importance of Shura

The practice of mutual consultation as a valid form of reaching consensus over

matters pertaining to the affairs of the community is explicitly referred to in two

Qur’anic verses (Al-‘Imran: 159, As- Shura: 38) as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, it is

also stated in the Qur’an chapter al-Baqarah verse 30:

“Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth”. They said:

“wilt thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? whilst we do

celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name). He said: “I know what ye know not”.

Allah consulted with the angels when appointing man as His vicegerent on Earth

(khalifah). Prominent commentators like al-Zamakhshari, al-Razi, and al-Baidawi

asserted in this respect that “here, Allah the Exalted wanted to teach man the

importance of conducting mushawarah and submitted the task to conduct shura to the

experts and leaders” (Al-Khatib, 1985).

The practice of shura allows the community to regulate its affairs peacefully and

arrive at a consensus acceptable to all individuals or groups involved in the decision-

making process. A matter of public interest is put up for discussion and debate among a




selected body of experts who are given the opportunity to share their respective

insights and suggestions. Such mutual consultation is not possible without a general

respect for different opinions and diverse viewpoints. Even though the final decision is

made by the appointed leader, it is an informed decision based on the various opinions,

suggestions and cautionary remarks made from all quarters which reduces the risk of it

being the wrong decision detrimental to the interests of the community at large. The

human mind or to be more precise the intellectual capacity (‘aql) can be likened to the

‘light’. If the different lights of different minds are joined, it increases in its intensity and

illuminates the way (Abdul Munsif, 1974).

3. The Malaysian Parliament and Its Fundamental Principles

3.1. The Function of Parliament

Parliamentary systems differ from presidential systems in which the former are

organized according to the doctrine of fusion of power, while the latter are known as a

system that practiced the theory of separation of power. Fusion of power means the

executive or cabinet ministers are collectively and individually responsible to the

legislature. It can also be described as ‘the concentration of all powers in the parliament’

in which the executive branches are intermingled with the legislative branches (Austin

Ranney, 2001).

When there is strong correlation between executive and legislative in the

parliamentary system, both may perform certain functions that involve national and

public affairs. Both executive and legislative members are automatically members of

parliament. Although the executive has its own exclusive function which is to enforce

the law and for the legislature to legislate the law, both shoulder the shared

responsibility of serving the public.

The original purpose of a parliament is the ‘representation of the people as a

whole’ (Philip Laundy, 1989). A parliament is expected to secure the interests of the

public as well as to scrutinize the government policies. It is the institution that ensures

that the government remains accountable to all citizens and answerable for its actions

and inactions.

A parliament must be free from any elements of interests of certain political

parties or individual interests. Therefore, the parliament should stand on its own

principles as the ‘citizen’s institution’ which possesses the ‘ultimate sovereignty’ by




upholding the principles of the constitution and never ceases to survey and admonish

the government.

3.2. The Malaysian Parliamentary Constituents

The sovereign state of Malaysia is governed by a parliamentary democratic system. It is

based on the British Westminster model. As such, the Malaysian Parliament serves as a

forum for the Malaysian public which has ceded the ultimate sovereignty to its

parliamentary representatives (Lukman Thaib, 1994). It is worth noticing in this

context that the Malaysian legal system has undergone many reforms which

differentiate it from many other legal systems. The Malaysian Parliament was officially

established on 31 August 1957 to replace the Federal Legislative Council introduced

since the Federation of Malaya in 1948. The Malaysian Parliamentary constituents form

part of the Federal legislature which consists of the Sovereign (Yang Di-Pertuan Agong)

and two Chambers, the House of Senate (Upper House) and the House of

Representatives (Lower House) (Article 44 of the Federal Constitution). Since Malaysia

has opted for a modern parliamentary democratic system based on constitutional

monarchy, it may be most appropriate at this point to briefly sketch the political role of

the supreme head of state or Yang Di-Pertuan Agong:

3.2.1 Yang Di-Pertuan Agong

The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is the Head of State in Malaysia. He is the king as well as the

Supreme Head of the Federation. According to the Malaysian constitution, the Yang Di-

Pertuan Agong is given precedence over all other rulers in Malaysia. Moreover, as king

he stands above everyone and can therefore not be convicted of any crime or be trialed

in any court except the Special Court. (Article 32 (1). Similar to the British Westminster

model, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is considered the Head of State while the elected

Prime Minister is considered the Head of Government. As such, Malaysia shares the

features of any other constitutional monarchy in contrast to absolute monarchies in

which the monarch occupies the position of both Head of State and Head of Government

(Mohamed Suffian, 1989). Since Malaya’s independence in 1957, the sovereignty of the

Malay rulers remained specifically protected which makes its system of government

unique because it combines the traditional element of hereditary kingship with modern

democratic principles. The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong symbolises both the distinctively

Muslim as well as Malay character of the federation.




3.2.2 House of Senate (Dewan Negara)

The House of Senate or Dewan Negara constitutes another important constituent in the

Malaysian Parliament. Also known as the Upper House it can be considered as one of the

highest bodies in the federal legislative structure. Its members are known as senators

and prominent people distinguished in certain fields and professions. The Upper House

plays an essential role in the parliamentary democracy system because its function is to

debate and scrutinize the bills drawn up by the Lower House, as stated in the Reid

Commission Report: “Our recommendations are made with the intention enabling the

senate to become an influential forum of debate and discussion, and a body which will

contribute valuable revision to legislation and which will be able to impose a measure of

delay in exceptional cases” (Reid Commission Report, para. 64).

3.2.3 House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat)

The important role of the House of Representatives or Dewan Rakyat is to propose,

discuss and draw up new laws. Its members act as the true representative of the people

or citizens. Due to the highly representative nature of the Lower House, the appointment

of its members differs from that of the Dewan Negara. General elections held every five

years determine which candidates become the representatives of the public and decide

on public matters in parliament. Individuals sitting in the Dewan Rakyat chamber are

expected to due their duties not to serve their own personal agendas and immediate

interests or that of their parties but to serve the public and act in the best interest of the

public in general (Chamil Wariya, 2009).

4. The Decision-Making Process between Shura and the Malaysian Parliament: A

Comparison

4.1 In Shura (Mutual Consultation)

The practice of mutual consultation or shura formed an integral part of early Islamic

governance since the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.). With regard to the decision-making

process in shura, Muslim Jurists have since debated the issue of whether such a decision

based on mutual consultation has to be considered binding or not. They have developed

their own arguments and come to their own conclusions based on the principles of the

Shari‘ah in connection with the implementation of shura. Opinion is divided, one group




stating that Muslim leaders are bound to act according to the collective decision of shura

while another group states that it is not, the former arguing that shura is considered a

mandatory practice and the latter arguing that it merely constitutes a commendable

practice.

4.1.1 Shura as a Mandatory Practice

The majority of contemporary Muslim scholars like Rashid Rida, Sheikh Mahmud Hijazi,

Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, and Ahmad Kamal Abu al-Majid maintain that shura is to

be considered as binding on the basis of Qur’anic evidence (Chapter 3, Verse 159). The

advocates of this group argue that the term ‘decision’ (‘azm) in the above verse can be

applied to ‘majority opinions’. In another words, it may be referred to any ‘decision that

is reached only after deliberation has taken place’ (Muhammad Zaman Marwat, 1990)

Ibn Qatadah also understands ‘azm to denote ‘a matter carefully checked and

considered’ and hence, to follow one’s own view without careful consideration is not the

same. While Rashid Rida interprets ‘azm as follows: ‘If the resolution on a matter is to be

made after consultation, in order to spend in favour of shura, put your trust in Allah on

his will’ (Rashid Rida, 1960).

Proponents of the argument in favour of the mandatory nature shura produce

further evidence from the Qur’an (Chapter 42, Verse 38) in connection with the

characteristics of the righteous. In that verse, Allah encourages the believers to practice

shura because every matter will be solved through it by arriving at the best possible

solution. Indeed, Allah the Exalted praises the leaders who practice shura because they

allow the debate to include all opinions on a matter and any consensus reached is based

on the collective opinions and ideas put forward by all shura members. Imam al-’Amidi

(1983) concluded that the collective opinions are ultimately based on the analysis of the

made arguments that may lead to a remarkable conclusion. It could also be argued that

it was virtually impossible for all informed members of a shura council to agree upon an

inherently wrong decision.

According to the opinion of this group which has decided on the mandatory

nature of shura, the Prophetic Sunnah supports the already existing Qur’anic evidence.

A hadith narrated by ‘Ai Ibn Abi Talib (r.a.) in connection with the revelation of Al-

‘Imran verse 159 who asked the Prophet (s.a.w.) about the meaning of ‘azm. The

Prophet (s.a.w.) is reported to have replied:




“al-‘azm means to consult (on a matter) with the people of sound opinion and then to obey

it (act according to the decision arrived at thereby)”.

This tradition is a clear indication that a decision is to be based in agreement

with the majority of consulted opinions. Another ÍadÊth of the Prophet (s.a.w.) also

emphasises the importance of taking the majority opinion:

“The Prophet (s.a.w.) said to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (r.a.): If both of you unanimously agree

each other in a matter, surely, my opinion will never be different from that of both of you”.

The above hadith suggests that the opinion of the majority wins over the opinion

of the minority. The Prophet’s (s.a.w.) own actions also support the mandatory nature of

a decision arrived at by way of mutual consultation (shura decision). The issue of

prisoners in the aftermath of the Battle of Badr, the war strategies in the battles of Uhud

and Khandaq, in respect to the Prophet’s intention to perform ‘umrah before the Treaty

of Hudaybiyah, and ’adhan (call for prayers) suggest that any decision arrived at by way

of consultation was to be implemented. The Prophet (s.a.w.) neither forbade himself to

consult with his companions nor did he ever reject their opinions. According to al-

Qardhawi (2005), it is a matter of ijtihad to arrive at a consensus by offering a solution

which is acceptable to all. Relying on the majority opinion in matters pertaining to the

public interest (al-masalih al-mursalah) is permissible as long as it does not contradict

any of the established Shari‘ah principles.

The practice of four rightly-guided caliphs (al-khulafa’ al-rashidun) relying on the

majority opinion became an argument for the advocates of the mandatory nature of the

decisions arrived by shura. In their opinion, especially ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab (r.a.), made

their decisions following the majority opinion. The issue of distribution of booty in the

land of Iraq, the epidemic in Syria, the creation of the first Hijri calendar, the

management of public funds, the issue of ‘Umar leading the battle against the Persian

army and the like are sufficient to argue that the second caliph was more inclined

towards accepting the opinion of the majority rather than his own.




4.1.2 Arguments for the Strict Advisory Function of Shura

The proponents of this group have concluded that there is no clear injunction found in

the Qur’an, the Sunnah or the practice of the companions which would make it

mandatory for a lawfully appointed ruler to implement the decision offered by a shura

council. In this respect they quote the same Qur’anic verse quoted by their opponents,

namely Al ‘Imran verse 159. They argue that although a Muslim leader is obliged to seek

counsel, he is not bound to accept their decision and act upon it. Commentators

interpreted ‘azm not only as meaning ‘majority opinion’ but also as ‘a precise decision’

or ‘something that happened’ or ‘to implement something without any doubt’ (Ibn al-

Jauzi, 1977). In this respect, Imam at-Tabari interpreted the above Qur’anic verse by

referring to Qatadah in the following words: ‘This verse is actually the commandment of

Allah to the Prophet to fully submit to Allah in anything that he did’ (At-Tabari, 1999).

Al-Zamakhshari (1966) added: ‘Al-‘azm means fully submitting in everything that

happens to Allah the Exalted as the [ultimate] Sustainer of accurate opinion, and not

even the Prophet (s.a.w.) and his companions know that’.

Contemporary Qur’an commentators like Ibn ‘Ashur (2000) have opined that ‘the

word ‘azm is connected with the preceding verse in which the obligatory shura has

provided a solution but the leader is free to follow the majority opinion or his own’.

Similarly, Shakir (1957) insists that ‘the Qur’anic verse mentioned before is a clear

injunction from Allah on the significance of shura and that the leaders must consult with

the shura members and base their final decision upon it, yet without specifying which

opinion is to be followed. The most important act after implementing the decision is to

submit it to Allah the Exalted.’

Thus, the advocates of this group conclude that the Divine commandment to

practice shura is obligatory for Muslim leaders, yet they are free to make their own

independent decision after consultation. As such, the decision arrived at by the council is

not legally binding. Thus, the council serves the purpose of an advisory council because

it serves the purpose of deliberating ideas and sharing different opinions on a matter

(Mahdi Fadlullah, 1984).

Similar to the Qur’anic evidence brought forward by the proponents of this

group, the same Hadiths pertaining to the established practice of the Prophet

MuÍammad (s.a.w.) are cited as evidence as were cited as evidence by the proponents of

the mandatory nature of the decision arrived at through mutual consultation. In




connection with this tradition it is suggested that if Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (r.a.) disagreed

on a matter, the Prophet (s.a.w.) would come up with a third opinion which

accommodated both of theirs (Al-Ansari, 1996).

The advocates of this group conclude that any decision made by way of mutual

consultation only served as good counsel because the Prophet (s.a.w.) himself did not

blindly accept majority opinion, as obvious in his decisions made in connection with the

Battle of Badr and the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. On the issue of the Muslims’ prisoners of

war after Badr, the Prophet (s.a.w.) discussed the matter with his companions but he

did not incline towards the opinion of ‘Umar who wished to kill all prisoners. Rather, he

inclined towards Abu Bakr’s opinion to free the prisoners in exchange for ransom

money. The Prophet (s.a.w.) then received revelation and obeyed the Divine command

rather than anyone’s opinion.

The treaty of Hudaybiyah constituted another important matter of communal

interest that did not require the Prophet (s.a.w.) to base his decision on the decision

formed by a majority opinion. Indeed, the majority of his companions fiercely opposed

the treaty, a circumstance that did not weaken his resolve to decide for himself. Despite

the many objections that were raised by his companions, the Prophet (s.a.w.) insisted to

answer Suhayl Ibn ‘Amru’s request which proved of tremendous benefit for the Muslim

community in the long run.

In respect to the practice of the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (r.a.), the

interpretations also differ in regard to the nature of a decision arrived at by a shura

council. Abu Bakr (r.a.) made his own independent decision on the issue of ’Usamah’s

army, actually in opposition to the opinion of the other companions. According to al-

Muhami, this event serves as an excellent example for the purely advisory function of

the practice of shura. He decided independently to enforce the Prophet’s (s.a.w.) will and

dispatch ’Usamah’s army to Byzantine (Al-Muhami, 1968). Yet, despite his independent

decision, Abu Bakr (r.a.) did not act as a tyrannical despot. When sensing that his

decision was meeting opposition, he decided to consult with his companions on the

matter and allowed them to disagree with him openly. He encouraged them to express

their opposing views and in the end persuaded them to support his decision.

When faced with rebellious Bedoun tribes, Abu Bakr (r.a.) wished to fight them

immediately and bring them to justice. Most of the companions disagreed and ‘Umar

(r.a.) suggested to exempt them from paying zakah for the time being. However, Abu




Bakr (r.a.) had his own reasons for his decision and did not change his mind

(Muhammad Zaman Marwat, 1990).

Similar to the case of dispatching ’Usamah’s army, Abu Bakr (r.a.) neither

followed his own desire nor did he disregard or disrespect the opinions of his council.

He took their opinions into account and deliberated, however, the final decision was

only his to make. He did not overrule the decision made by the council because the

council’s role was merely to advice. Ultimately, the companions saw the wisdom in his

decision and supported it.

The second Caliph, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab (r.a.) also never blatantly disregarded

the opinions of his shura council. In any arising matter, his first act was to consult with

his companions. On the issue of distributing the conquered lands in ‘Iraq, ‘Umar (r.a.)

consulted with his companions who either wanted to distribute the land among the

deserving members of the Muslim army (‘Abd Rahman Ibn ‘Awf, Zubayr Ibn al-‘Awwam,

and Bilal Ibn Rabah) or have it remain in the hands of the local Muslims (‘Uthman Ibn

‘Affan, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu‘adh Ibn Jabal, and Talhah Ibn ‘Ubaydillah).

Initially, ‘Umar (r.a.) was inclined to leave the lands in the hands of the ‘Iraqis but

he decided to gather the people who debated over the issue for several days. According

to Abu Yusuf (n.d.) ‘Umar (r.a.) finally decided to distribute land’s property among the

deserving locals referring to a Qur’anic injunction. Like Abu Bakr (r.a.), he made his

decision based on his own best judgment but succeeded in persuading the companions

to accept the validity of his decision and support it.

4.2 In the Malaysian Parliament

The Malaysian parliament is regarded as an essential feature of any democratic

government. apart from the decision-making process, it has gone through several steps

before certain decisions have been made. Firstly, as a supreme commander of the

federation, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong has absolute power over the state which can be

interpreted through the three branches of government namely the executive, the

legislature and the judiciary. Although he does not directly participate in the

parliamentary discussion, he has the power to summon and prorogue parliament

(Article 55). On the other hand, he can use his discretion in order to dissolve parliament

(Article 40 (2) (b) although ‘the constitution obliges him to act on advice (Article 40 (1)

of the Cabinet or a Minister’ (Mohamed Suffian, 1989). The law bills passed by the




Parliament must obtain the approval of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as head of the

legislature before it becomes the law (Article 66 (4).

The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong also acts as the Head of all Muslims of the federation

including the states of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak (Article 3 (3). This role of

his is deemed necessary in order to preserve Islam as the official religion of Malaysia

(Article 3). The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong also acts as the Supreme Commander of the

Armed Forces (Article 41) and has the power to appoint the officers. The power to

declare a national emergency (Article 150) also lies in the hand of the Yang Di-Pertuan

Agong.

As Head of Executive, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong has the power to appoint the

Prime Minister (Article 43 (2) (a). According to article 40 (2) (a) of the Constitution, he

can use his discretionary power to appoint the Prime Minister under certain

circumstances such as ‘when there is uncertainty following a hung parliament’ (Abdul

Aziz Bari, 2003). Furthermore, he also has the authority to appoint government and

state officials such as ministers (Article 43 (1), judges (Article 122B), ambassadors, etc.

As Head of Justice, he has the power to grant pardon for criminals tried by martial courts

and in the federal territories (Article 42 (1).

Secondly, The Dewan Negara (Upper House) does not have the power to nullify

the bills passed by the Lower House but it may delay the process (Article 68 (1).

However, the Upper House has similar function with the Lower House’s in connection

with constitutional amendments. They provide an additional forum of parliamentary

discussion as it provides expertise in every field of knowledge and allows discussion to

benefit from the experience of its members. According to Lukman Thaib (1994), “the

role of Dewan Negara is to act as forum for experienced and qualified figures from all the

communities and areas of public life where they can bring their wisdom and expertise to

solving questions of national importance”. Compared to the heated and generally more

emotionally charged debates of the Dewan Rakyat, the Dewan Negara offers a more

peaceful atmosphere in which arising issues are discussed and followed by more

matured opinions and thoughts.

Last but not least, The Dewan Rakyat (Lower House) takes the initiate to draft the

bills which undergo three important stages of reading in which the members of

parliament may discuss and debate and reach a final unanimous agreement. The bills are

then ratified by the Upper House and the Yang Dipertuan Agung. The Dewan Rakyat is




more powerful than the Dewan Negara in terms of making law. The Dewan Negara only

has the right to review and scrutinize the proposed bills. It may decide to delay passing

the bills but it does not have right to reject them outright (Article 68). In accordance

with the British Westminster model, the executive and legislative branches may be fused

into the House of Representatives (Dewan Rakyat). Consequently, the function of

parliament as the ‘people’s institution’ would cease because of the executive’s

intervention in the decision-making process made by the legislative.

Even though the political role of the Dewan Negara is not as significant as that of

the Dewan Rakyat, it remains a respected and valuable institution in the eyes of the

public. Even though its power is limited to delaying bills and returning them back to the

Dewan Rakyat for further assessment, it encourages the reaching of a consensus among

the senate’s experts and distinguished individuals which guides public opinion (Mohd

Salleh Abas, 1989).

4.3 Comparison

After looking into the issue of decision-making process according to both political

systems; in the Islamic Shura Council and the secular democratic Malaysian Parliament,

a comparative analysis helps identify the similarities and differences. Both systems

differ in terms of their conceptual frameworks, and therefore, the comparison focuses

on their respective procedures rather than their foundational principles. A number of

similarities can be identified when comparing the decision-making process in the Shura

Council and in the Malaysian Parliament which can be summarized as follows:

1. The Shura Council and the Malaysian Parliament are institutions in which members

consult each other and exchange their opinions on arising matters. Both institutions

are places of discussion and debate where members are eligible to express their

opinions, exchange ideas and offer criticism. Members of the Shura Council had

given an opportunity to express their opinion freely in the process of decision-

making. Similarly to the Members of the Malaysian Parliament are also given liberty

to express their views and help improve the situation of Malaysian people.

2. The Shura Council and the Malaysian Parliament are both institutions that represent

the people, and its decision-making process deemed to be served for the public. A

Shura Council gives council members the opportunity to struggle for people’s rights.

Meanwhile, Members in the Malaysian Parliament regardless of men and women, for




instance, are also accountable to bring public issues - especially those concerning

citizens’ welfare - to the parliament. If they fail to do so, they are questioned by the

public and the government. The members in the Malaysian Parliament and the Shura

Council are the people’s representatives and share the same objective which is to

serve the public to the best of their abilities.

3. The members of both institutions need to be sufficiently qualified in order to be

eligible for such posts. Moral integrity, being an upright character and a professional

and knowledgeable individual are certainly among its many criteria which need to

be fulfilled in order to produce good decision. A member of the Shura Council has to

be, according to al-Mawardi, a person of knowledge, justice, and wisdom. Members

that qualified for this form of consultation on state level have to be well-versed in

the law and able to suggest and decide over its amendment. They would need the

same level of knowledge as someone qualified to exercise ijtihad (Al-Siba’i, 1984).

Among the noticeable differences between the decision-making process in the Shura

Council and in the Malaysian Parliament are:

1. The Shura Council is an Islamic institution developed within the framework of

Shari‘ah law. There is no specific procedure stated in Shari‘ah law in the decision-

making process. Even though the process in any existing shura council in the past or

present has not yet been specified, affirmative action is needs to be implemented in

order to produce a sophisticated appointment structure for the betterment of

Islamic governance and fair representation. This constitutes the responsibility of all

Muslims in general and the Muslim scholars of law and political thought in particular

because the Shari‘ah law has already provided guidelines and principles in this

respect. Unlike the Malaysian Parliament is a secular democratic institution

developed within the framework of Western law. Consequently, the decision-making

process strictly follows the Federal Constitution procedures in which guided

through several phases in order to produce good results.

2. Secondly, the difference between decision-making process in the Shura Council and

in the Malaysian Parliament lies in the principles of relying on majority. The Shura

Council is guided by the Shari‘ah law and therefore the lawful and the prohibited has

been determined by Allah and is derived from an unalterable source, the text of the




Qur’an, irrespective of a majority supporting it or not. The Malaysian Parliament, on

the other hand, constitutes a basic secular democratic principle in which Western

democracies are only compelled to remaining true to their respective constitutions

which are amendable. When morals and values change in society, the law will

eventually follow suit and change.

3. Thirdly, Gender-biased behaviour in decision-making process is one of the

differences in both institutions. Given the strict criteria in terms of morality and

piety which are required from the members of a Shura Council, whether men or

women, such untoward and morally repulsive behaviour is not only very unlikely to

occur, it would also spark immediate public protest and the immediate dismissal of

such individual. Meanwhile, Gender-biased behaviour often occurs in the Malaysian

Parliament because any the entire parliamentary chamber is dominated by men. In

response, women who wish to be respected and heard have to imitate the men’s

behavior. Sexual harassment also frequently occurs in the Malaysian Parliament

where male politicians are tempted to use offensive language in order to humiliate

and intimidate their female opponents.

5. Finding Analysis

After making a comparative analysis on the decision-making process in the shura

council and in the Malaysian Parliament, the researcher intends to analyze to which

extent are the leaders from both systems– after duly consulting with the respective

members of their council– bound to follow the decision reached by consensus or not? On

the other hand, this study is also intends to propose better solutions on this matter in

the future. Below is presented a set of recommendations based on the Islamic principles

to the existing practice in order to improve the way of decision-making from both

institutions:

1. Always stick with the opinions resulted from the collective opinion because its

generally inclined towards righteousness which is supported by what Prophet

Muhammad (s.a.w.) was reported to have said:

“My community shall not agree upon an error”.




The majority opinion tends to prove superior to individual opinion because the latter is

limited to the constricted understanding and insight of only one mind. A single mind is

easily swayed by evil, as the Prophet (s.a.w.) is reported to have cautioned the believers:

“Whosoever among you affluence with the heaven should always be with the majority,

indeed, Satan always accompanies a lone person but is further removed from (a group

of) two”.

2. The principle of mutual consultation is essentially based on consultation with the

majority, be it in form of direct consultation with the public or with their

representatives. According to al-Maududi, a Muslim leader who ignores the majority

and follows his own opinion independently renders the very purpose of mutual

consultation as super fluent and meaningless (Al-Mududi, 1980). Such practice would

diminish the members of council’s credibility and invite political instability and civil

unrest (Abu Faris, 1988).

3. A properly functioning decision-making system creates a healthy political

atmosphere stimulated by intellectual debate and mutual tolerance and respect. The

contribution of each member of the council is acknowledged and becomes part of the

shared quest for a solution.

4. The proper implementation of decision-making process also encourages the principle

of equality among the members of council. Each member’s opinion or suggestion

deserves equal attention and acknowledgment, regardless of whether all members

agree with it or not. All members of council have been acknowledged by their

appointment to possess an equal capacity to propose a viable a solution to the

problem under discussion.

Meanwhile, there are other Islamic principles that contradict with the above

recommendations which not encourage relying totally on majority in the decision-

making process, but it is the leader’s responsibility in making a decision. Among the

arguments put forward are as follows:

1. A leader has the power to make an independent decision and does not need to

implement the majority opinion. Legally, he is considered as a mujtahid in his own

right, meaning having the ability to deliver rulings in accordance with Shari‘ah

principles. A mujtahid is not permitted to follow a majority opinion simply because it




is a majority opinion. Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out in case there was a disagreement

between the shura members and the leader, the leader was obliged to make a

decision according to his best knowledge of the law (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1971). It may be

added at this point that Muslim leaders of today generally do not possess the

qualifications of a mujtahid which opens the door to a multitude of other factors

which need to be taken into consideration.

2. The principle of relying on the majority opinion does not constitute a fundamental

principle in Islamic governance. In fact, it constitutes a basic secular democratic

principle. Unlike Islamic governance which postulates the adherence to Islamic law,

Western democracies are only compelled to remaining true to their respective

constitutions which are amendable. When morals and values change in society, the

law will eventually follow suit and change. In Islam, the lawful and the prohibited has

been determined by Allah and is derived from an unalterable source, the text of the

Qur’an, irrespective of a majority supporting it or not (Al-Maududi, 1967). Moreover,

there are numerous instances in the Qur’an in which the majority of people are

characterized as being foolish, unjust, and ignorant of the Truth, such as:

“But most of them ignore (the truth)” (The Qur’an, 6: 111)

and

“But most of them follow nothing but fancy” (The Qur’an, 10: 36)

3. If the Muslim leader is mujtahid, he is entitled to make and enforce his decision

without depending on others. At this point, a mandatory shura decision would lead to

the negation of his function as appointed leader. If the decision of the council was

binding, the council would in fact be assuming the position of ultimate leadership.

The believers are commanded to obey ‘those who have authority’:

“O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with

authority among you” (The Qur’an, 4: 59).

The word ‘ulil ’amr’ connotes exclusive rights of the leaders to be obeyed by the

people with the condition that these leaders does not deviate from what is lawful.

Islamic tradition does not specifically include in the covenant (bay‘ah) between a




ruler and the people that would require a leader to listen to his people’s demands

(Hasan Huwaidi, 1975). However, there is also no rule which prohibits an elected

leader to listen to the people’s voice, the very same people who have entrusted him

with power.

6. Conclusion

From an Islamic perspective, the concept of parliamentary discussion can be

compared with the concept of mutual consultation (shura), an important element of

Islamic governance. The application of shura at every administrative level ensures the

true Islamic character of a government because mutual consultation was practiced by

Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) and his successors, to the benefit of the Muslim

community. Being a form of practice rather than a fixed institution, shura is a very

flexible element which can be integrated into every decision-making process. It ensures

that a selected group of qualified individuals are entrusted with exchanging and

discussion their individual ideas with the intention to arrive at a consensus.

The Divine order to implement shura in the management of human affairs which

are always communal affairs is unalterable and cannot be rejected or its

implementation denied. Although mutual consultation may be exercised at a political

level by a group of selected few, they do represent the most capable, knowledgeable and

experienced members of society. Similarly, the elected members of parliament also

represent society in as much as they were entrusted by the public to represent their

interests. Although the institution of parliament and the shura council possess

fundamental differences, in terms of the decision-making process, a comparison can be

made and similarities and differences highlighted. When incorporating the element of

decision-making process in shura, it can serve as starting point for infusing and

cultivating Islamic norms and values into the decision-making process in the Malaysian

Parliament. Thus, it allows a new perspective from which the present form of procedure

can be understood and encourage the cultivation of Islamic principles in secular

parliaments serving the purpose of their conscious adherence to the Shari‘ah principles.




Reference

‘Abdul Fatah, ‘Abdul Munsif Mahmud. (August 1974). Al-Shura Da‘amat al-Hukm al-

Salih. Majallah Minbar al-Islam, 8 (32).

Abu Faris, Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir. (1988). Hukm al-Shura fi al-Islam wa Natijatuha.

‘Amman: Dar al-Furqan.

Abu Yusuf, Ya‘qub Ibn Ibrahim. (n.d.). Kitab al-Kharaj. Al-Qahirah: Al-Bab al-Halabi.

Al-’Alusi, Abu al-Thana’ Shihab ad-Din. (1926). Ruh al-Ma‘ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim

wa al-Sab‘i al-Mathani. Al-Qahirah: Matba‘ah al-Munirah.

Al-’Amidi, Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali Ibn Abi ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Salim. (1983). Al-’Ihkam fi

Usul al-’Ahkam. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Al-Ansari, ‘Abdul Hamid Isma‘il. (1996). Al-Shura wa Atharuha fi al- Demoqratiyyah:

Dirasah Muqaranah. Al-Qahirah: Dar al-Fikr al-‘Arabi.

Al-Badawi, Isma‘il. (1994). Ma‘alim al-Shura fi al-Islam. Al-Qahirah: Dar an-Nahdah al-

‘Arabiah.

Al-Khalidi, Mahmud ‘Abdul Majid. (1980). Qawa‘id al-Nizam al-Hukm fi al-Islam. Kuwait:

Dar al-Buhuth al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Al-Khatib, Zakariya ‘Abdul Mun‘im Ibrahim. (1985). Nizam al-Shura fi Islam wa Nizam

al- Demoqratiyyah al-Mu‘asirah. Al-Qahirah: Matba‘ah al-Sa‘adah.

Al-Maududi, Sayyid Abu al-‘Ala. (1967). Nazariyah al-Islam wa Hadiyahu. Beirut: Dar al-

Fikr.

Al-Maududi, Sayyid Abu al-‘Ala. (1980). The Islamic Law and Constitution, edited by

Khurshid Ahmad. Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd.

Al-Muhami, Mahmud. (1968). Al-Shura fi al-Islam. Beirut: Dar al-Irshad.

Al-Qardhawi, Yusuf. (2005). Min Fiqh al-Dawlah fi al-Islam. Al-Qahirah: Dar as-Shuruq.

Al-Sajastani, Abu Dawud Sulayman Ibn al-’Ash‘ath Ibn Ishaq al-’Azdi. (1965). Sunan Abu

Dawud. Al-Qahirah: Matba‘ah Dar al-Kutub.

Al-Siba‘i, Mustafa. (1984). Al-Mar’ah bayna al-Fiqh wa al-Qanun. Beirut: Al-Maktabah al-

Islami.

Al-Tabari, Abu Ja‘far Muhammad Ibn Jarir. (1999). Tafsir al- Tabari: Jami‘ al-Bayan fi

Ta’wil al-Qur’an. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiah.




Al-Tabarsi, Abu ‘Ali Amin al-Din al-Fadl al-Hasan. (1886). Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-

Qur’an. Teheran: Tab‘ah al-Ma‘arif al-Islamiah.

Al-Zamakhshari, Mahmud Ibn ‘Umar. (1966). Al-Kasshaf ‘an Haqa’iq al-Tanzil wa ‘Uyun

al-’Aqawil. Maktabah Mustafa al-Halabi.

Al-Zuhaili, Wahbah. (2005). Al-Tafsir al-Munir: fi al-‘Aqidah wa al-Shariah wa al-Manhaj.

Damshiq: Dar al-Fikr.

Austin Ranney. (2001). Governing: An Introduction to Political Science. Upper Saddle

River, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Bari, Abdul Aziz. (2003). Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction. Kuala Lumpur:

The Other Press.

Brockman & Russel. (2009). Decision-making/reasoning skills. Building partnership for

youth: National4-H Council and the University of Arizona.

Chamil Wariya. (2009). Parlimen Malaysia: Perjalanan Badan Perundangan Persekutuan.

Petaling Jaya: Media Global Matrix Sdn Bhd.

Fadlullah, Mahdi. (1984). Al-Shura: Tabi‘ah al-Hakimiyyah fi al-Islam. Beirut: Dar al-

’Andalus.

Harris, R. (1980). Introduction to Decision Making. Virtual Salt.

http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm

Huwaidi, Hasan. (1975). Al-Shura fi al-Islam. Kuwait: Maktabah al-Manar al-Islamiyah.

Ibn ‘Ashur, Muhammad Tahir. (2000). Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir. Beirut: Mu’assat al-

Tarikh.

Ibn al-‘Arabi , Abu Bakr Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah. (1957). ’Ahkam al-Qur’an. Al-

Qahirah: Dar al-IÍya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiah.

Ibn al-Jauzi, Abi al-Farj ‘Abd Rahman. (1977). Zad al-Masir fi ‘Ilm al-Tafsir. Beirut: Dar al-

’Afaq al-Jadidah.

Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqi ad-Din Ahmad. (1971). Al-Siyasah al-Shar‘iyyah fi ’Islah al-Ra‘i wa

al-Ra‘yah. Beirut: Dar as-Sha‘b.

Laundy, Philip. (1989). Parliaments in the Modern World. Aldershot: Dartmouth

Publishing Company Limited.

Lukman Thaib. (1994). Al-ShËrÉ (Political Representation in Islam) and its Application in

the Contemporary Governmental System of the Republic of Pakistan and Malaysia.

Selangor: Ph.D. thesis. National University of Malaysia.

http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm




Mohamed Suffian. (1989). An Introduction to Legal System of Malaysia. Selangor:

Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd.

Mohd Salleh Abas. (1989). Parlimen Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan

Pustaka.

Muhammad Zaman Marwat. (1990). Al-Shura (consutation): An Analysis of its

Significance and the Need for its Implementation and Institutionalization in the

Contemporary Muslim World, Ph.D. thesis, Temple university of U.S.A.

Rashid Rida. (1960). Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Hakim Mashhur bi Tafsir al-Manar. Al-Qahirah:

Maktabah al-Qahirah.

Shakir, Ahmad Muhammad. (1957). ‘Umdat al-Tafsir ‘an al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir. Beirut: Dar

al-Ma‘arif.

2.8-The Decision- Making Process Between Shura .pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2.8-The Decision- Making Process Between Shura .pdf