Critique of Wahhabi Concepts of Democracy, Kingdom, and Governance: Toward an Islamic Democratic Ethic

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 16 July 2025 The discourse surrounding political Islam in the contemporary world is profoundly shaped, and often distorted, by the ideological and political dominance of the Wahhabi movement, particularly as institutionalized within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Forged in the crucible of an 18th-century alliance between the puritanical preacher Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) and the dynastic ambitions of the House of Saud, this political-theological project has successfully projected its model of governance—a fusion of religious absolutism and hereditary monarchy—as the most authentic and unadulterated expression of "true Islam." This interpretation, however, is neither theologically inevitable nor historically representative of the rich, diverse, and dynamic intellectual traditions of Islamic political thought. On the contrary, a meticulous interpretive inquiry, grounded in a progressive, humanistic, and liberative reading of the Quran, reveals the Wahhabi model to be a stark deviation from the core ethical imperatives of Islamic scripture. It is a system built upon a restrictive hermeneutic that sacralises authoritarianism, silences the collective agency of the Muslim community (Ummah), and ultimately obstructs the very justice it purports to uphold. This paper argues that the Wahhabi conception of governance, which rejects democracy as an impious innovation (Bid’ah) and sanctifies the kingdom as a divinely ordained structure, is the product of a selective and decontextualized reading of Islamic sources. This reading systematically prioritizes a narrow interpretation of divine sovereignty (Hakimiyyah) and a rigid command for obedience (Ta’ah) over the Quran's unequivocal emphasis on mutual consultation (Shura), justice (Adl), human dignity (Karamah), and the collective vicegerency of humanity (Khilafah). By engaging in a deep synthesis of classical and contemporary Islamic scholarship, this analysis will deconstruct the theological architecture of Wahhabi authoritarianism and, in its place, construct the foundations for a robust Islamic democratic ethic. This alternative ethic is not a capitulation to Western political norms but a recovery of the Quran's own pluralistic, participatory, and profoundly ethical vision for human society. I will demonstrate that the principles required for a just, accountable, and representative government are not foreign to Islam but are, in fact, embedded within its foundational texts. The path toward an authentic Islamic future, therefore, lies not in the perpetuation of an absolutist kingdom but in the courageous embrace of a justice-centred, democratic governance where the people, as God’s designated trustees on Earth, are empowered to shape their own destiny in accordance with divine values. This paper will proceed by first dissecting the theological and historical underpinnings of Wahhabi political thought, then offering a direct Quranic and hermeneutical counter-narrative, and finally outlining the core principles of a liberative Islamic democracy. Wahhabi Political Theology: A Model of Authoritarianism The political theology of Wahhabism is not a monolith that emerged fully formed from scripture; it is a specific historical construct, born of a particular time, place, and political necessity. Its core tenets regarding governance—the monopolization of divine sovereignty, the sacralisation of kingship, and the demand for unconditional obedience—can only be understood by examining the symbiotic pact that gave it life and the restrictive hermeneutic that sustains it. The genesis of Wahhabi political thought lies in the pivotal 18th-century alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1792), a religious reformer from the Nejd region of Arabia, and Muhammad bin Saud (d. 1765), a local chieftain. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s mission was one of purification, seeking to eradicate what he considered polytheistic innovations (shirk) and return to a pristine, unadulterated form of monotheism (Tawhid). This religious zeal, however, required political and military force to be realized. As historian Madawi Al-Rasheed notes, this pact wedded a militant religious creed to dynastic ambition, creating a formidable force where "the sword of Al Saud was to enforce the religious mission of the Shaykh" (Al-Rasheed, p.45). This foundational alliance established a durable and mutually reinforcing structure: The House of Saud provided the political power and material resources to propagate the Wahhabi doctrine, while the Wahhabi clerical establishment (Ulama) provided the divine legitimacy for the Saud dynasty's rule. This historical contingency is crucial. The Wahhabi model of governance was not derived from an abstract theological inquiry into ideal political forms; it was shaped by the practical need to legitimize and sustain a specific dynastic, expansionist project. As Natana DeLong-Bas explains, the movement’s political theory became intrinsically linked to supporting the authority of the ruler who upheld its version of Islamic law, thus creating a system where religious and political power became inextricably fused (DeLong-Bas, p.47). This fusion sanctified the state and its hereditary rulers, transforming political loyalty into a religious obligation and political dissent into a form of heresy. At the theological core of the Wahhabi rejection of democracy is a radical and absolutist interpretation of Hakimiyyah—the principle of God's exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate. Drawing from Quranic verses that condemn those who do not judge by what God has revealed (e.g., 5:44, 5:45, 5:47), Wahhabi theology posits that God is the sole legislator. Any attempt by human beings to create laws or establish a political system based on popular sovereignty—the will of the people—is seen as an act of usurping God's divine prerogative. This, in their view, constitutes a form of modern-day polytheism (shirk). Prominent Wahhabi scholars like Saleh Al-Fawzan (1935-) explicitly argue that democracy, which vests legislative power in the hands of elected representatives, is fundamentally incompatible with Islam because it replaces divine law with human desire. This perspective frames democracy not as a neutral mechanism for governance but as a competing religion, a "Western imposition" that constitutes a grave Bid’ah (heretical innovation). This Manichean worldview, as described by scholar Bernard Haykel, leaves no room for political pluralism or participatory governance, reducing the political sphere to a simple binary: submission to God's law as interpreted by the Wahhabi clergy and their designated ruler, or rebellion against God (Haykel, p.89). Consequently, electoral participation, parliamentary debate, and the very concept of a loyal opposition are rendered theologically illegitimate. The role of the populace is not to participate in shaping governance but to piously submit to its enforcement. To secure this authoritarian model, Wahhabi political theology employs a highly selective hermeneutic of obedience (Ta’ah). The primary textual support for this is Quran 4:59: "O you who have believed, obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority (Uli Al-Amr) among you." In the Wahhabi framework, this verse is stripped of its broader context and ethical qualifiers and is wielded as a divine command for near-unconditional obedience to the ruler. As Khaled Abou El Fadl observes, this interpretation reduces Islamic governance to a simplistic formula of "obedience to the ruler," even when that ruler is demonstrably unjust, so long as he outwardly performs Islamic rituals and does not command a direct violation of a clear divine prohibition (Abou El Fadl, p.128). This emphasis on obedience is justified by an overriding concern to prevent fitna (civil strife, sedition). The trauma of early Islamic civil wars is often invoked to argue that the evil of a tyrannical but unifying ruler is lesser than the evil of chaos and social fragmentation. Therefore, any form of public critique, protest, or organized opposition is condemned as a pathway to Fitna, a grave sin that threatens the stability of the Muslim community. This interpretation effectively silences dissent and insulates the ruler from accountability. The kingdom is thus not merely a political structure but a theological necessity, a bulwark against chaos, and the king, as the Uli Al-Amr, becomes a sacralised figure whose authority must not be questioned. This political theology creates a closed loop: the king’s legitimacy comes from the Wahhabi clergy, who in turn are protected and empowered by the king, while the populace is locked into a cycle of enforced obedience, justified by a hermeneutic of fear. A Quranic Hermeneutic of Governance: Deconstructing Absolutism The Wahhabi construction of an authoritarian, monarchical state, while presented as a direct application of divine will, collapses under the weight of a more holistic and ethically coherent reading of the Quran. A liberative hermeneutic reveals that the Quran is not a blueprint for absolutism but a call for a just and accountable social order. It is deeply sceptical of concentrated, unaccountable power and instead elevates principles of collective responsibility, human dignity, and justice as the true measures of legitimate governance. Contrary to the Wahhabi sanctification of monarchy, the Quran describes kingship (Mulk) in predominantly negative terms, associating it with corruption, tyranny, and the violation of justice. There is no verse in the Quran that unconditionally validates hereditary monarchy as the ideal or even a preferred form of Islamic governance. When the Queen of Sheba describes the nature of kings, her observation is stark and cynical: "Indeed, kings—when they enter a town, they ruin it and render the honoured of its people humbled" (27:34). This verse is not presented as a flawed human opinion but stands in the text as a sharp political insight into the destructive nature of unchecked monarchical power. The quintessential archetype of the tyrannical king in the Quran is Pharaoh (Fir'awn). He is the ultimate symbol of despotism, a ruler who declares "I am your Lord, the Highest" (79:24), claims exclusive legislative authority (28:38), massacres the innocent, and spreads corruption on earth. The entire narrative of Moses and Pharaoh is a divine lesson in challenging tyranny and siding with the oppressed. The Quran consistently positions itself against the Pharaonic model of governance, making it theologically incoherent to then embrace a system of absolute monarchy as quintessentially "Islamic." Even when the Quran mentions prophets who exercised political authority, such as David, the power is framed not as an absolute right but as a conditional trust. When God appoints David as a Khalifah (vicegerent or ruler) on earth, the appointment comes with a strict and immediate injunction: "So judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of God" (38:26). This powerful verse demonstrates that even for a prophet-king, political power is not an end in itself but a means to establish justice. The warning against following personal desire (al-hawa) is a direct critique of the arbitrary nature of absolute rule. Power must be constrained by a higher moral-ethical framework grounded in truth (al-Haqq) and justice (al-Adl). This divine admonition implies the necessity of checks and balances, rendering the idea of an unaccountable monarch theologically untenable. The Vicegerency of Humanity and the Trust of Governance (Amanah) Perhaps the most profound Quranic counter-narrative to monarchical absolutism is the concept of khilafah. While often misinterpreted as the title for a single autocratic ruler (caliph), its primary meaning in the Quran is far more radical and democratic. In Quran 2:30, God announces to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority [Khalifah]." As progressive scholars have long argued, this vicegerency is bestowed not upon a single individual, dynasty, or clerical class, but upon humanity as a whole. Every human being is a trustee of God on Earth, endowed with moral agency and a collective responsibility to cultivate a just and compassionate society. From this humanistic perspective, governance is the practical mechanism through which this collective trusteeship is exercised. Political authority is not a divine right inherited by a king but a sacred trust (Amanah) delegated by God to the human community. Khaled Abou El Fadl eloquently argues that the Ummah as a whole is the recipient of this trust, and it is the community that, in turn, entrusts the duties of governance to rulers through a form of social contract (Abou El Fadl, p.112). This reorients the entire political paradigm. If sovereignty ultimately belongs to God, its execution on Earth is a delegated responsibility of the people. Therefore, a political system like democracy, which allows the community to choose its leaders, hold them accountable, and remove them from office peacefully, is not a challenge to God’s sovereignty. Rather, it is arguably a more effective and ethically sound method for discharging the collective Amanah of Khilafah than an absolute monarchy, which concentrates the trust in a single, unaccountable family. The Dignity of the Human Agent (Karamah) and the Imperative of Freedom The Wahhabi model of governance, with its emphasis on rigid legalism, surveillance, and enforced conformity, treats the individual as a passive subject to be controlled. This vision is fundamentally at odds with the Quran's elevation of human dignity (Karamah). The scripture declares unequivocally, "And We have certainly honoured the children of Adam" (17:70). This inherent dignity is not contingent on piety, status, or obedience to a ruler; it is a God-given birth- right. This dignity is intrinsically linked to the human capacity for moral reasoning and free will. The Quran affirms the freedom to choose one's path, stating, "the truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve" (18:29). This freedom of conscience is the bedrock of a morally meaningful existence. A political system that relies on coercion, suppresses freedom of thought and expression, and criminalizes dissent infantilizes its citizens, stripping them of the very moral agency that makes them accountable before God. As Amina Wadud powerfully argues, the Quran should be read as a document of liberation that promotes justice, equality, and human flourishing (Wadud, p.59). A political theology that fosters fear and coercion is a betrayal of this liberative spirit. Furthermore, the Quran bestows upon the community the responsibility to "enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong" (3:110). This duty is not the exclusive domain of a state-sponsored religious police, as institutionalized in the Wahhabi model, which Ebrahim Moosa critiques as turning Islam into a "moral police state" (Moosa, p.113). Rather, it is a civic and moral duty incumbent upon all members of society. For this duty to be fulfilled, there must be a vibrant public sphere where citizens can speak truth to power, critique injustice, and hold their leaders accountable without fear of reprisal. The Prophet himself was open to critique and correction from his companions, demonstrating that even prophetic leadership was dialogical, not despotic. The Wahhabi kingdom's criminalization of dissent is therefore a direct violation of this fundamental Quranic principle of civic responsibility. Reclaiming the Democratic Ethos: Shura, Justice, and Pluralism Having deconstructed the theological basis of Wahhabi absolutism, we can now construct the principles of an Islamic democratic ethic. This ethic is not an artificial graft of Western ideas onto an Islamic framework but an authentic recovery of core Quranic values that have been marginalized by authoritarian interpretations. The principles of Shura (consultation), Adl (justice), and pluralism provide a robust foundation for a governance model that is both divinely inspired and democratically constituted. The most explicit Quranic principle for participatory governance is Shura (consultation). The scripture praises the community of believers in the highest terms as those "whose affair is [a matter of] consultation among themselves" (42:38). In another key verse, God directly commands the Prophet Muhammad, despite his access to divine revelation, to "consult them in the affair" (3:159). These verses are not mere suggestions for benevolent rulers to seek occasional advice; they are foundational principles for the political life of the Muslim community. The Wahhabi interpretation deliberately narrows the scope of shura, reducing it to a non-binding, advisory process where the monarch consults a hand-picked council of loyal scholars and elites. The ultimate decision remains with the ruler. However, a more faithful and liberative hermeneutic understands these verses as establishing the constitutional basis for popular sovereignty and representative government. The phrase in 42:38, "their affair" (Amruhum), is general and all-encompassing, clearly implying that all matters of collective concern, chief among them being political governance, must be decided through mutual consultation. The Quran does not prescribe a specific mechanism for this consultation, leaving it to the ijtihad (independent reasoning) of each generation to develop institutions appropriate for their context. In the modern world, as scholars like Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im and Rashid al-Ghannushi have argued, this principle finds its most effective expression in constitutional democracy, with its mechanisms of elections, representative parliaments, and public deliberation (An-Na’im, p.102; Ghannounchi, p.15). The practice of the Prophet and the early Muslim community further reinforces this participatory understanding. The selection of the first four caliphs, while not conforming to modern electoral standards, was based on a process of consultation and consensual allegiance (Bay’Ah), not on hereditary succession. The Prophet’s own willingness to be corrected by his companions, such as in the strategic decisions at the Battle of Badr or the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, demonstrates that leadership was a dialogical and collaborative enterprise. An absolutist, hereditary kingdom that denies its people a meaningful voice in their own governance stands in direct contradiction to this profound Quranic and Prophetic ethos of Shura. The Primacy of Justice (Adl and Qist) and Conditional Obedience If shura provides the procedural foundation for Islamic democracy, then justice (adl and qist) provides its ultimate moral purpose. The Quran is relentless in its demand for the establishment of justice. It commands believers to "stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin" (4:135). It further instructs, "be steadfast for God, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness" (5:8). These verses establish an uncompromising standard of impartial justice that transcends personal loyalties, tribal affiliations, and dynastic interests. A political system must be judged by its capacity to deliver this justice. This ethical imperative for justice reframes the concept of obedience. As previously noted, the Wahhabi model relies on a decontextualized reading of the obedience verse (4:59). A full and honest reading of the verse, however, reveals a crucial qualifier: "And if you disagree over anything, refer it to God and the Messenger." As scholar Sherman Jackson points out, this clause is not a footnote but a central check on power (Jackson 98). It establishes a higher authority—the principles of justice and righteousness embodied in the divine message—to which both rulers and the ruled are subject. It implies that obedience is conditional upon the ruler’s adherence to justice. When a ruler commits injustice (Zulm), which the Quran vehemently condemns, the community has not only the right but the moral duty to challenge that injustice and "refer the matter" back to the ultimate arbiters of Quranic ethics. Blind obedience to an unjust ruler is a perversion of this verse; its true meaning is a call for a society governed by the rule of law, where even the most powerful are held accountable. This justice-centred ethic is inherently liberative. The Quran repeatedly calls on believers to fight on behalf of the oppressed (Mustad'afin), asking, "And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the cause of God and for the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, 'Our Lord, take us out of this town of oppressive people'?" (4:75). A political theology that sides with the oppressor and demands that the oppressed remain silent and obedient is a betrayal of this core liberative mandate. Finally, an Islamic democratic ethic must be pluralistic, reflecting the Quran's own vision of a diverse humanity. The Wahhabi model is inherently homogenizing, imposing a single, rigid interpretation of Islam and suppressing all other schools of thought and religious traditions. This stands in stark contrast to the Quran's celebration of diversity as a divine sign: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another" (49:13). The purpose of diversity is not conflict but mutual recognition and enrichment. The verse "For each We have appointed a law and a way. Had God willed, He would have made you one community" (5:48) further solidifies the principle that religious and legal diversity is part of the divine plan. The historical precedent for a pluralistic Islamic polity is the Constitution of Medina, a document drafted by the Prophet Muhammad himself. This charter established a multi-religious and multi-tribal city-state where different communities, including Jews, were recognized as part of a single political community (Ummah) with guaranteed rights and responsibilities (Ramadan, p.118). It was a social contract based on citizenship, not on religious conformity. This early model provides a powerful counter-example to the exclusionary and intolerant nature of the Wahhabi state. Embracing this pluralism requires a revitalization of ijtihad—the tradition of independent legal and ethical reasoning. The stagnation and rigidity of the Wahhabi model stem from its closure of the "gates of ijtihad" and its insistence on a monopoly over interpretation. Thinkers from Muhammad Abduh to Fazlur Rahman and Abdolkarim Soroush have argued that the survival and flourishing of Muslim societies depend on their ability to engage in dynamic, critical thinking to address the challenges of modernity (Rahman, p.262; Soroush, p.76). An Islamic democracy would foster an environment of intellectual freedom where scholars and citizens can engage in robust debate and ijtihad to derive laws and policies that are both faithful to the ethical spirit of the Quran and responsive to the needs of a contemporary, pluralistic society. The Moral Necessity of Islamic Democracy The Wahhabi model of governance, with its theological justification for absolute monarchy and its categorical rejection of democratic principles, is not the timeless, authentic Islam it claims to be. It is a specific, historically contingent political project built upon a restrictive and ethically deficient hermeneutic. By selectively interpreting concepts like Hakimiyyah and Ta'ah while systematically marginalizing the foundational principles of Shura, Adl, Karamah, and Khilafah, this model has produced a political theology of authoritarianism that is fundamentally at odds with the liberative and humanistic spirit of the Quran. It conflates the political stability of a dynasty with the well-being of the Ummah, demands obedience at the expense of justice, and enforces conformity at the cost of human dignity. In stark contrast, a hermeneutical approach that is progressive, humanistic, and rooted in the Quran's overarching ethical imperatives reveals that an Islamic democratic ethic is not only possible but is, in fact, a theological necessity. Such an ethic sees democracy not as a foreign import to be rejected, but as a set of mechanisms through which the core political values of Islam can be most effectively realized in the modern world. It reclaims Shura as the basis for a participatory and representative government. It re-centres Adl as the ultimate purpose of the state, demanding accountability and the rule of law. It honours Karamah by protecting the rights and freedoms of every citizen. And it understands Khilafah as the collective trust of the people to govern themselves justly. The path forward for Muslim societies aspiring to a future of freedom, justice, and human flourishing requires a courageous intellectual and spiritual break from the confines of authoritarian theology. It demands a revitalized engagement with the Quran, not as a static legal code for a moral police state, but as a dynamic source of ethical guidance for a just and compassionate public order. To reject the kingdom and embrace democracy is not to abandon Islam; it is to reclaim its most profound political vision—a vision of a community of morally autonomous agents, united in their diversity, co-creating a just society as God's trustees on Earth. Bibliography Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Islam and the Challenge of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Al-Rasheed, Madawi. A History of Saudi Arabia. 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. An-Na’im, Abdullahi Ahmed. Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari‘a. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Asad, Muhammad. The Principles of State and Government in Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2000. DeLong-Bas, Natana J. Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ghannounchi, Rashid. Public Freedoms in the Islamic State. Beirut: Dar Al-Kitab, 2001. Haykel, Bernard. Revival and Reform in Islam: The Legacy of Muhammad al-Shawkani. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Jackson, Sherman A. Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking Toward the Third Resurrection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Moosa, Ebrahim. Ghazali and the Poetics of Imagination. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Ramadan, Tariq. In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Soroush, Abdolkarim. Reason, Freedom, and Democracy in Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Wadud, Amina. Quran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. ----- V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-society/wahhabi-concepts-kingdom-governance-islamic-democratic-ethic/d/136189 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism