PDA

View Full Version : Stand for Islam



ibn Zahra
03-23-2005, 01:38 PM
Saturday 2nd April 2005 @ 10:30am

Venue:

Royal National Hotel
Bedford Way
London
WC1H

Nearest Underground : Russell Square

http://standforislam.org/events/events2.htm

"Hizb ut Tahrir Britain is placing a refreshing and honest alternative before the Muslim community in the UK. We believe that the longer the party political system occupies our time and energy here, the longer we will be denied our full potential. These parties make promises they do not keep. They have policies which fundamentally contradict our values and beliefs. They ask for our votes conditional on doing 'favours' for the community. They try to exploit and divide us into Labour, Liberal and Tory Muslims. Sometimes they place Muslim candidates in front of us, only to betray us.

The alternative is to look what we can do for ourselves, outside the corrupt party political electoral process. How can our community unite and be strong? How can we use our voice to help the oppressed Muslim world be liberated from colonial subservience? How can we solve the drugs and crime crisis amongst the youth? How do we deal with the Islamophobia in society? Can we overcome the fear that government and media are creating about and within the Muslim community?

We are calling for an open and sincere debate on these most important of questions.

www.standforislam.org


TAKEN FROM THE ABOVE WEBSITE NOT MY OWN
inshAllah sounds good
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
root
03-23-2005, 02:22 PM
Why can't you stand for "Britain".

The electoral & government bodies you accuse of being "Corrupt" do not use "religion" as it's power base. Unless their is a "christian" lead political party.

"Stand for islam" merely creates seperatism. Why do we still talk of the "Muslim Community" the "Black Community" and not "our community".

Why do you always talk about "Muslim opression" yet you said "Nothing" about Muslims oppressing muslims". Where was your voice when saddam was slaughtering his fellow muslim brothers. When are you going to stop thinking of an "Islamic Community" and help integrate all communities together which is what political aspirations to a great extent is all about.

Their can be no "Islamic Party" for religous based representation in a modern and free society, so why are the foundations being built. A free society does not base it's policies on a religous belief................
Reply

ibn Zahra
03-23-2005, 05:39 PM
thanks for ur reply, il try address some of the points u made.
firstly, u said "why cant you stand for "britian""
we cant stand for britain because british values contradict our basic islamic values. in britain democracy rules. in islam democracy is not allowed at all. this might come to u as a bit of a shock but let me explain this statement. in democracy the people are the legislators, they make the rules and laws, in Islam the rules and laws are set from my, your, and everones lord, Allah in the Quran and the hadith(narations) of the prophet Muhamed(pbuh). what u have to remember is that islam and Allah can be proven interlectually and rationally so therefor the rules and laws of Islam have to accepted. just like i can prove to u 2+2=4 i can prove to u Allah exists, Islam is the truth and the Quran is the Words of our creator. we dont believe that the limited human mind can make rules and laws for ppl to live by. i could go into this deeper but i think ive outlined the basics so il end that point here.

the next point u raised was the title creates seperatism. ok, it might but do we not see that the muslim community is already seprate from society to an extent. and the reason is because of the values we hold. these values to the average brit might see as something odd such as our view towards democracy or in Islam women have to dress in a certain way, or the men grow beards... all these things potray a comletely different way of life to that of the average brit so there is going to be a obvious clash of thoughts which sometimes lead to sepratism. once again i feel this is another thread on its own so lets end it there.

the most shocking thing u said was, "Why do you always talk about "Muslim opression" yet you said "Nothing" about Muslims oppressing muslims". Where was your voice when saddam was slaughtering his fellow muslim brothers. "
i say most shocking because throughout saddams reighn muslims all over have been condeming him and the evil things he did to our brothers and sisters in Iraq and the sourounding area. so dont say that we didnt voice our opinions against sadam because we did. the reason as to which we dont speak about sadam as much as we speak about the usa or the uk is because they have done alot worse. dont take my word for it, find the number of Iraqi suvillians killed for example. u wont be able to because everyones lost count. the figures range from at least 13 000 to 200 000. alot more than those survillians killed in the 9 11 attacks but yet we see everyday someone talking about 9 11. WHAT ABOUT THE MUSLIMS?? are we inferior? to the wests eyes, yes we are. u as a individual might feel different but as a whole this is the view towards the muslim countries.
i think i anwsered the other points u made. if not just reply and il try.
i also advice u to come to the event and share ur thoughts because this is a very important topic of discussion.
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-23-2005, 08:18 PM
The alternative is to look what we can do for ourselves, outside the corrupt party political electoral process. How can our community unite and be strong? How can we use our voice to help the oppressed Muslim world be liberated from colonial subservience? How can we solve the drugs and crime crisis amongst the youth? How do we deal with the Islamophobia in society? Can we overcome the fear that government and media are creating about and within the Muslim community?
this is BS.

islam does not teach us to alienate ourselves from society, rather it tells us to go preach and integrate with other non muslims and the society at large.

The prophet would send single companions to tribes and the entire tribe would submit to islam, it was through their faith that these people radiated and propogated the best of manners and morals.......

When Umar bin khattab went and recieved the key to palestine, all who lived there (the jews and christians) remained there and lived in harmony along side the muslims for centuries.

the approach stated in the first post is one which would only justify the government to kick all muslims out of britain. When really muslims should be setting the example and be people who can be looked up to and trusted, not hated.

jazakallah khier

wasalam :shade:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
ibn Zahra
03-23-2005, 09:14 PM
salaam bro, firstly i wud like to advice as a brother to watch what u say. theres no need for it, rather advice me with nice words not the oppennig line that u started with. jazakallah khier.
i completly agree with u. the muslims shouldnt hide away and alienate themselves from society this is completly wrong and we can use ur examples that said and others aswell to prove this, however when the values in the society contradict the muslims we dont take it. just like the sahabah and the prophet(pbuh) didnt take it. at the same time we dont run from it. rather we challenge it. this is what was trying to say to the person earlier about democracy.
yes we dont vote as muslims because it is Haram, but we still get involved in politics. politics goes on everyday of the year not just every 5 years in the general election. bro, i think u miss-understood the point that u quoted.
take care bro!
masalaam
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-23-2005, 09:16 PM
Brother can you show me evidence that it is haraam? The majority of the Ulema have declared that it is halaal.
Reply

ibn Zahra
03-23-2005, 09:18 PM
sure, give me two minutes
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-23-2005, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Brother can you show me evidence that it is haraam? The majority of the Ulema have declared that it is halaal.
oohhhh senses big heated debate :shade:

salaam bro, firstly i wud like to advice as a brother to watch what u say. theres no need for it, rather advice me with nice words not the oppennig line that u started with. jazakallah khier.
:shade:

bro, i think u miss-understood the point that u quoted.
............ the article says: How do we deal with the Islamophobia in society? yet the way its going about changing this is to infact increase islamophobia. it make no sense yarh.

wasalam :shade:
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-23-2005, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by ibn Zahra
sure, give me two minutes
*ansaar this is the time you go get your side of the argument/evidence ready to refute :D *
Reply

ibn Zahra
03-23-2005, 09:44 PM
[I][I]Unclothing Democracy


وَلاَ تَلْبِسُواْ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُواْ الْحَقَّ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“And do not clothe (cover) truth with falsehood, while you know what it is.” (Al-Baqarah:42)

One would be forgiven into believing that the amount of times that George Bush referred to democracy in his inaugural speech for his second term as US President that he actually believed in it.

It is not that democracy has any real substance, it never really did. In history, nations and their philosophers who sought to bring life to it only ended up discarding it or spending the rest of their philosophical lives trying to re-engineer it within more philosophical constraints.
Meanwhile, the modern day western politicians and capitalists have been thriving upon it, seducing the world’s states to adopt democracy as the only way to become progressive and civilized. Such is the dominance and influence of western political philosophy over the mind-set of academics, politicians, nations and people – it is as if one would be considered a heretic to even suggest an alternative or to even challenge the validity and application of democracy….and at least be popularly labelled as a fundamentalist, extremist and averse to world peace.

This stranglehold, not surprisingly, today stills deals an unfortunate blow for many leading Islamic thinkers, academics and scholars – who – in their sincere attempts to preserve Islam have made the grave error of wanting to present Islam as not simply ‘democractic’, but the actual source of democracy.

Recently, whilst, Sheikh al-Qardawi on his regular slot on Al-Jazeera was trying hard to defend ‘Islamic democracy’ against a tirade of Muslim callers at pains to point out their fundamental incompatibility – an article printed on-line by ArabNews entitled ‘Muslims and Democracy’ (21/02/05) referred to New York University professor, Noah Feldman, a theorist of Islamic democracy, who observed in his book, ‘After Jihad’, “that the caliphs never had absolute authority...the historical roots (for democracy) are there for modern Muslims who want to draw on the historical narrative”.

Without doubt, the rise of political Islam has been a key cause for the exponential rise in the discussions, conferences, papers, policies to equate Islam with democracy. The guardians of the bastion of ‘western capitalism’ have not only begun to see their own people increasingly beginning to reject the western values, and at least see the open hypocrisies of their western governments, but they have witnessed their worst fear, a global rise in political Islam that challenges the very existence of capitalism, its values and exposes the continuation of imperialist policies around the world, particularly in the Muslim world with the aid of puppet regimes.

To this end, Muslims must be like a cog in this Islamic political wheel. Indeed Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wassalam) said, “The wheels of Islam are turning, so turn with it.”

The Muslims must present the truth as truth and the falsehood as falsehood. The Muslims must not cower in intellectual defeat from the current dominant western political climate of words, values and indeed actions…seeking reconciliation, where there is none and attempt to mould Islam by words and meanings to make it more palatable for western political consumption, though such words and their meanings are alien to Islamic political philosophy and fundamentally contradict the Islamic creed.
Indeed Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) says (in the translation of the meaning),
وَلاَ تَلْبِسُواْ الْحَقَّ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَتَكْتُمُواْ الْحَقَّ وَأَنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“And do not clothe (cover) truth with falsehood, while you know what it is.” (Al-Baqarah:42)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَقُولُواْ رَاعِنَا وَقُولُواْ انظُرْنَا وَاسْمَعُوا ْوَلِلكَافِرِينَ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

“O you who believe, do not say ‘Ra’ina, but rather say, ‘Unthurna…” (Al-Baqarah:104).


This ayat was revealed in connection to the incident of where Jews used a word which had a meaning and changed its meaning to insult Muhammad (saw), thereby the Muslims were prohibited from using it.

So where does that leave democracy?
The well-known definition of democracy is of a government that is established, ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’.
By simply scratching at its surface, it is clear that it democracy no relationship with Islam in its generality or in its detail. The following points should be observed:

Origins
Democracy has originated from the mind of man, whereas Islam has originated from Allah (swt).

Basis
Democracy has its basis in secularism i.e. the detachment of religion from life, whereas Islam is based upon a comprehensive socio-economic and political structure where 'religion' i.e. the shariyah, is the source of all legislation.

Thoughts
Democracy produces thoughts such as the four general freedoms (belief, individual, speech and ownership), people are the source of legislation, and the rule of the majority. Islam by contrast does not allow these absolute freedoms, nor are the people the source of legislation and neither is the Islamic ruling based on majority rule.

Systems
Democracy produces systems that incorporate a legislative body (parliament or equivalent), political parties that function to oppose and compete against the government and a time limit for leadership (normally 4-5 years office). The Islamic political structure has no such structures or systems. In Islam there is no legislative body and the Khaleefah is the judicial and executive power. Political parties in Islam exist for one duty that is to account the government and raise the political and intellectual level of the ummah. Political parties are not permitted to compete for power and become an 'opposition party'. Also, the ruler in Islam is the ruler for as long as he implements Islam and as long as he does not contradict the conditions of ruling and neither resigns or dies.

Though in Islam there are elections for the appointment of the leader (Ameer) over the Muslims, one cannot say that elections are what makes Islam and democracy similar, for this is like comparing a dog to a chair and saying that since both have four legs, they are similar. In the west, elections represent the concept that people are sovereign over their affairs and the source of legislation, whereas in Islam elections represent the shariyah rule that the people have the authority and obligation to appoint a ruler to govern them with Islam.

It should be evident therefore that democracy has no relationship with Islam. Indeed the very misery that is being caused in the Muslim world i.e. oppression, suppression of any attempt to account the rulers, denial of rights, nepotism, people political enfranchisement – has been caused and supported by the ‘west’. It is evident that the drive for democracy is only to secure their control over the Muslim world and suppress the rise of political Islam – since their puppets have lost the ability to do this for them and the world has started to talk about the injustices that have the hidden support of western governments.

The intellectual political climate today is ripe for the Muslims to present the Islamic political framework and thoughts and not succumb to the western political philos

I GOT THIS GOOD EXPLANATION OF A SITE
SORRY I TOOK SO LONG I HAD TO DO SOMETHING FOR MY MUM
SOZ
BROTHER I ASK U DEEPLY TO CORECT ME IF U THINK IM WRONG
ALWAYS IN SEARCH OF KNOWLEDGE INSHALLAH
JAZAKALLAH KHIER :sl:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-23-2005, 09:59 PM
:sl:
I'm actually interested that you posted an article on democracy. I have been posting an article around very much on the subject, and I will direct you to it after we examine this article.
Originally Posted by ibn Zahra
“And do not clothe (cover) truth with falsehood, while you know what it is.” (Al-Baqarah:42)
Wait a minute. This quote says do not clothe TRUTH with FALSEHOOD.

But according to you, democracy would be clothing FALSEHOOD with TRUTH.

Therefore, even the quote is misplaced.

It is not that democracy has any real substance, it never really did. In history, nations and their philosophers who sought to bring life to it only ended up discarding it or spending the rest of their philosophical lives trying to re-engineer it within more philosophical constraints.
I think the author of this article would be surprised to learn that democracy is a very natural concept and the Islamic system itself is democratic.


So where does that leave democracy?
The well-known definition of democracy is of a government that is established, ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’.
By simply scratching at its surface, it is clear that it democracy no relationship with Islam in its generality or in its detail.
While a democracy runs on consensus, it does not have to place human desires as the ultimate source of law. In an Islamic democracy, Allah swt is the ultimate source of law. That does not contradict the definition of democracy at all.

Democracy has originated from the mind of man, whereas Islam has originated from Allah (swt).
The name 'democracy' may have been man-made but it denotes a concept that has been long established in Islam.

The remainder of the article is the same.

Allow me to present another article which is written by a Muslim Shaykh and offers an indepth comparison between Islam and Democracy.


Shoora and Democracy: A Conceptual Analysis

Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris
http://islaam.com//Article.aspx?id=545


What is shoora?

Shoora comes from an Arabic word shara whose original meaning, according to classical Arabic dictionaries was to extract honey from hives.The word then acquired secondary meanings all of which are related to that original one. One of these secondary meanings is consultation and deliberation. The way consultation and deliberation bring forth ideas and opinions from peoples' minds must have been seen to be analogous to the extracting of honey from hives. It might also have been thought that good ideas and opinions were as sweet and precious as honey.



According to this purely linguistic meaning, shoora is no more than a procedure of making decisions. It can thus be defined as the procedure of making decisions by consultation and deliberation among those who have an interest in the matter on which a decision is to be taken, or others who can help them to reach such a decision.



The important matter on which shoora is made can be either a matter which concerns an individual, or a matter which concerns a group of individuals, or a matter that is of interest to the whole public. Let us call the first individual shoora, the second group shoora, and the third public shoora.



Thus formally understood, shoora has nothing to do with the kind of matter to be decided upon, or the basis on which those consulted make their decisions, or the decision reached, because it is a mere procedure, a tool you might say, that can be used by any group of people - a gang of robbers, a military junta, an American Senate or a council of Muslim representatives.



There is thus nothing in the concept which makes it intrinsically Islamic. And as a matter of fact shoora in one form or the other was practiced even before Islam. An Arab Bedouin is reported to have said, "Never do I suffer a misfortune that is not suffered by my people." When asked how come, he said, "Because I never do anything until I consult them, astasheerahum.. “ It is also said that Arab noblemen used to be greatly distressed if a matter was decided without their shoora. Non Arabs also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Qur'an, in the habit of never making a decision without consulting her chieftains..



What is democracy?



What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the people, demos. On the face of it, then, democracy has nothing to do with shoora. But once we ask: "How do the people rule?" we begin to see the connection.





'Ruling' implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208)



The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that what is meant by rule here is that they make basic decisions on matters of public policy. How do they make those decisions? Ideally by discussion and deliberation in face-to-face meetings of the people, as was the case in Athens.





Similarities



Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation. But this is what an Arab would have described as shoora. It might be thought that there still seem to be some differences between shoora and democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters. But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of life, because a people who choose to give the power of decision-making on political matters to the whole population, should not hesitate to give similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be and is, therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is almost identical with shoora. There is thus nothing in the primary or extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or secular. If shoora can take a secular form, so can democracy take an Islamic form.



Islam and secular democracy



Basic differences

What is it that characterizes shoora when it takes an Islamic form, what is it that characterizes democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are the differences between these forms, and the similarities, if any? What would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I cannot go into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of the vital issues which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks, and therefore give democracy and shoora those special forms when placed within their frameworks.



Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have anything to do with public policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a private matter. The first point to realize here is that there is no logical connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with democracy. A people who believe in secularism can therefore without any violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically.



Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two choices:



<B>
a.</B> They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense that they or their representatives are absolutely free to decide with majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal any laws. This form of democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the people in the place of God; in Islam only God has this absolute power of legislation. Anyone who claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any one who gives him that right is thereby accepting him as God. But then the same thing would happen if such a secular community accepted the principle of shoora, because they would not then exclude any matter from its domain, and there is nothing in the concept of shoora which makes that a violation of it.



b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in which the right of the people to legislate is limited by what is believed by society to be a higher law to which human law is subordinate and should not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with Islam or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is believed to be a higher law.

In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the right to deprive a minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed to be their inalienable human rights. Belief in such rights has nothing to do with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw, with a democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also similarities.



The basic difference is that in Islam it is God's law as expressed in the Qur'an and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. No one can be a Muslim who makes, or freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept, legislation that is contrary to that Divine law. Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption.



When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it is these kinds of legislation that they have in mind. A shoora without restriction or a liberal shoora would, however, be as un-Islamic as a liberal or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by adoption of shoora instead of democracy.



Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal democracy, Islamic shoora is not a political system, because most of the principles and values according to which society is to be organized, and by which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper description of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic and not shooraic, because shoora is only one component of it.



This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and dictatorship. There have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they were so only in that they were not chosen by the true representatives of the Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of the Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers dared, or perhaps even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law.



This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another way. It gave the ulama so much legislative power that it was their word, and not that of the ruler that was final on many matters. An interesting section of one of al Bukhari's chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be rejected.



Walter Lippman considers it a weakness of democracy that it laid more emphasis on the origin of government rather than on what it should do. He says (Rossiter, 1982, p. 21) :





The democratic fallacy has been its preoccupation with the origin of government rather than the processes and results. The democrat has always assumed that if political power could be derived in the right way, it would be beneficent. His whole attention has been on the source of power, since he is hypnotized by the belief that the great thing is to express the will of the people, first because expression is the highest interest of man, and second because the will is instinctively good. But no amount of regulation at the source of a river will completely control its behavior, and while democrats have been absorbed in trying to find a good mechanism of originating social power, that is to say, a good mechanism of voting and representation, they neglected almost every other interest of men.



Similarities So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and some of the less basic or minor differences.



Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the concepts of democracy and shoora entail.



In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as individuals, even if they are in a minority. These rights are said to be inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be violated, even by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if embodied in a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even tyrannical. One might think that the idea of inalienable rights is not compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the people, because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of the population some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that is the rule of the people, and it would thus be undemocratic to not to let it pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so. It is not so because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the people are equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they should be ruled that democracy is the rule of the people. But surely individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in decision making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive, they must be able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no contradiction between the concept of democracy or shoora and the idea of inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because the former is more basic to democracy than the latter.



If I am right in saying that these values are entailed by democracy and shoora, it follows that absolute democracy, democracy that is not constrained by those values, is a contradiction in terms.



Islamic shoora agrees with liberal democracy that among the important issues to be decided by the people is that of choosing their rulers. This was understood from the fact that the Prophet chose not to appoint his successor, but left it to the Muslims to do so, and this was what they did in a general meeting in his town al-Madina. When it was reported to Umar, the second Caliph, that someone said that if Umar died he would give allegiance to so and so as Caliph, he got very angry and said that he would warn the Muslims "against those who want to forcibly deny them (their right)". He later made a public speech in which he said,





If a person give allegiance to a man, as ruler, without a consultative approval of the Muslims, ala ghayri mashoorati-n min al muslimeen, then neither he nor the man to whom he gave allegiance should be followed (Bukhari, al Muharibeen)



As far as my knowledge goes the manner in which this public right is to be exercised, is not specified in any authoritative statements or practice. The first four, The exemplary Caliphs were chosen in different ways.



Is the Islamic state democratic?

Can a country that abides by the principle of shoora constrained by Islamic values be described as democratic? Yes, if democracy is broadly defined in terms of decision-making by the people. No, if it is arbitrarily defined in a way that identifies it with the contemporary Western brands of it. Such definitions commit what Holden (1988, p. 4) calls the definitional fallacy.





In essence it is the fallacy of believing that the meaning of 'democracy' is to be found simply by examining the systems usually called democracies. A common example of this is the idea that if you want to know what democracy is, you simply have a look at the political systems of Britain and America. There are some deep-rooted misconceptions involved here. Apart from anything else, though, such an idea involves the absurdity of being unable to ask whether Britain and America are democracies: if 'democracy' means , say, 'like the British political system' we cannot ask if Britain is a democracy.



An example of a definition which commits this fallacy is that of Fukuyama (1992, p. 43)





In judging which countries are democratic, we will use a strictly formal definition of democracy. A country is democratic if it grants its people the right to choose their own government through periodic secret-ballot, multi-party elections on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage.



There was no universal suffrage in Athens where women, slaves, and aliens were excluded; no universal suffrage in America until 1920, in Britain until 1918 or 1928, and in Switzerland until 1971. Fukuyama's definition would exclude all these, and would apply only to contemporary Western democracies or ones that are copies of them.



I called such a definition arbitrary because it selected, without any rational criterion, only those features which are common to the Western democracies, but not those on which they differ, and made them necessary conditions for a country being democratic. Otherwise instead of government, it could have said 'their own president', but that would have excluded Britain and some other European democracies. It could also have been specific on the periods of time between elections, but that would again have excluded some Western democracies.



Why should the right to form political parties be a condition for democracy? Suppose that a country gave its people, as individuals, and not as party members, the right to freely choose their government, why should that exclude it from being a democracy?



Why should government elections be periodic? Can't a country be democratic and set no limit to the term of its ruler so long as he was doing his job in a satisfactory manner, but gave the elected body that chose him the power to remove him if and whenever they thought that he was no longer fit for the job?



Having said all this, I must add that I do not set any great store on the epithet 'democratic'. What is important to me is the extent to which a country is Islamic, the extent to which it abides by Islamic principles, of which decision making by the people is only one component and, though important, is not the most important.

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-23-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Brother_Mujahid
*ansaar this is the time you go get your side of the argument/evidence ready to refute :D *
:lol: ;)
Reply

root
03-24-2005, 12:05 PM
thanks for ur reply, il try address some of the points u made.
firstly, u said "why cant you stand for "britian""
we cant stand for britain because british values contradict our basic islamic values.
I have to be honest in stating that I personally am against your method of thinking, and it's nothing to do with your faith so please don't throw the "islamaphobia" rubbish at me. The world through technology and inovation of "Mankind" (not through Islam or Christianity) has become a smaller world which brings "all" people together irrespective of Race and Religion. The biggest challenge the world faces today is "integration" your proposing NOT to integrate but to build a "religous political" framework that is seperatist based, but suits your belief. You offend Britain by calling it corrupt when in fact britain better still the United kingdom is officially inside the top 10 for the least corrupt country in the world, which is independently listed.

in britain democracy rules. in islam democracy is not allowed at all. this might come to u as a bit of a shock but let me explain this statement. in democracy the people are the legislators, they make the rules and laws,
I disagree with your assesment of British democracy. The "People" DO NOT make the rules, we would never have "Poll tax" if that were the case. The people give their "Support" to how their country will be managed, the people decide for themselves which "Political" party is best suited to the task based on the "policies" or rules of that political party which is Military and Religuosly non biased. Only on issues of extreme implications to the future of the country do the "People" tell the government what they want, an example would be a referendum on full membership to the EU.


in Islam the rules and laws are set from my, your, and everones lord, Allah in the Quran and the hadith(narations) of the prophet Muhamed(pbuh). what u have to remember is that islam and Allah can be proven interlectually and rationally so therefor the rules and laws of Islam have to accepted. just like i can prove to u 2+2=4 i can prove to u Allah exists,
Firstly, if by definition Islamic government rule was ruled by Allah in the Quran and the hadith would that be an Islamic state? If so, then why if it is as good as you indicate are their no Islamic states in the world today, also consider why not 1 Islamic Republic makes the top 10 least corrupt countries.

The rules and laws of Islam do not need to be accepted since you cannot "Interlectually" nor "rationally" prove Allah's existence. It requires faith of which I understand Islam and respect Islam as I do other religions. We all have a right to practice a religion and be respectful of other religions. On the same note, Atheists like myself have a right to without being labelled in a negative way.


Islam is the truth and the Quran is the Words of our creator. we dont believe that the limited human mind can make rules and laws for ppl to live by. i could go into this deeper but i think ive outlined the basics so il end that point here
I beleive you beleive that, and I respect that. but proposing an "Islamic" political movement within a democracy cannot happen since democracy is free from Military and Religous representation. Your proposing exactly the opposite in gaining Islamic influence which in turn out of fairness would bring about a "Christian Political Party" and we all start going back to the bloody history of all our pasts when we should all be moving forward "together"........

And thus I will end my point here also.
Reply

Brother_Mujahid
03-24-2005, 08:19 PM
i can understand more or less where your coming from root........ just wanted to make the following comments
[QUOTE=root] The world through technology and inovation of "Mankind" (not through Islam or Christianity) has become a smaller world which brings "all" people together irrespective of Race and Religion. [QUOTE] islam bought about loads of inventions and alot of medical out breaks which todays civilisation has taken from the muslims. the time period known to us as 'the dark ages'. people did not work hard in their respective fields for wordly gain or acknowledgement but purely for the sake of Allah. funny you say: " brings "all" people together irrespective of Race and Religion." as this is what islam teaches us. :)

Firstly, if by definition Islamic government rule was ruled by Allah in the Quran and the hadith would that be an Islamic state? If so, then why if it is as good as you indicate are their no Islamic states in the world today
its what the world leaders fear, if one country was to be established the first thing for the world super powers would be to invade that country and eliminate any threat of a islamic khilfah being established...... evidence of afganistan..... pakistan was just corrupted big time so it eliminated any threat of a khilafah being established their.

but proposing an "Islamic" political movement within a democracy cannot happen since democracy is free from Military and Religous representation. Your proposing exactly the opposite in gaining Islamic influence which in turn out of fairness would bring about a "Christian Political Party" and we all start going back to the bloody history of all our pasts when we should all be moving forward "together"........
i suppose you can explain why bush after 9/11 was saying and reffering to the americans being like crusaders liberating eeeraq. you make it out as if under democracy no blood has never been spilt........ far too many innocent people have died under the movement of countries with democracy, which argue that the people they invade are in much need of liberating and freedom of speach.
Reply

root
03-24-2005, 10:05 PM
Brother Mujahid

I agree that Muslim's have made a great contribution. We all have as "mankind".

Forgive my objection to an Islamic State since as you pointed out, as an example of the closest thing to an Islamic state, It does not bode well.

i suppose you can explain why bush after 9/11 was saying and reffering to the americans being like crusaders liberating eeeraq. you make it out as if under democracy no blood has never been spilt
Firstly, "Crusades" were called for by the papecy to all Catholic controlled countries of then "Medieval Europe". The US have about as much historical links to these "Crusades" as Islam does against the Falkland Islands. As for the spilling of blood, in medieval times and two Industrialised world wars. This is History, history is the past. the Christian domination of the US is cause for concern for even her best Allie.

far too many innocent people have died under the movement of countries with democracy, which argue that the people they invade are in much need of liberating and freedom of speach.
I think the above statememt says more about you than me................
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-25-2005, 02:03 AM
This forum is for Islamic events. If you would like to continue this discussion, let me know and I'll move it into one of the threads in World Affairs.

If not, then this thread remains for information regardung the event adevertised in the original post.

:w:
Reply

Umm Yoosuf
03-25-2005, 08:14 PM
Hizb ut Tahrir???

>>>>>>>>>>> Runs out of the thread!
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 11:54 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2010, 10:25 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-08-2006, 07:34 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2006, 06:30 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!