Best Islamic Democracy?

[Dahir]

Simple Question: What is the best Islamic democracy in the World?

There is the criteria for this:

Is the country led by a people-oriented leader?

Is the country economically stable?

Is the country of reasonable size/population (4Million+)?

Is the country politically pure (minimal corruption) and stable?

Does the country have high religious value?

[lolwatever]

*searches through human rights records of every country*

none available..

[Dahir]

*searches through human rights records of every country*

none available..

C'mon, those Malaysians have got to be SOMEWHAT qualified, and Syria ain't TOO bad. Just get past Turkey, Egypt, and some of the other screwed up countries.

Wow, you're right, every Islamic nation on Earth has a terrible recent human rights history.

[KAding]

Well, Turkey would probably fail on the "high religious value" criteria, but otherwise it is probably one of the more succesful Muslim nations. Otherwise I agree that Malaysia or even Indonesia are performing reasonably well.

I must also note that having "people oriented leaders" does not make a democracy.

I must also note that having "people oriented leaders" does not make a democracy. In a democracy the people must choose it's leaders and be able to send them away if they fail to fulfil their promises.

But nevertheless, Syria cannot be called a democracy though, can it? Do you believe they have "people oriented leaders"? Assad is a dictatoc, no? And on human rights his leadership and that of his father were quite horrible, no?

What about Tunesia? Do people here beleive that is a reasonably well functioning country?

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

[lolwatever]

^^ tunisia lol.. hahahahaha havnt u heard about the amnesty uproar n stuff... checkout its human rights record, its cactus, there's alot of theft n stuff going on coz of the low paid secret agents and a tonne of other stuff


ps: amazing how powell reckons its a beakon of democracy.. orwatever he called it.. its got beautiful coastlines, perhaps that counts :p

[afriend]

lol.....Urm............

[KAding]

^^ tunisia lol.. hahahahaha havnt u heard about the amnesty uproar n stuff... checkout its human rights record, its cactus, there's alot of theft n stuff going on coz of the low paid secret agents and a tonne of other stuff

Hehe, alright then. I was trying to think of an Arab example for an "Islamic Democracy" and I guess I failed :(.

Second attempt: All in all lebanon has a fairly dynamic and democratic political system, no?

The thing is, Malaysia and Indonesia don't implement Sharia law do they? I mean, not even formally? They are not "Islamic republics". So I kinda wonder if they would qualify on the count of having "high religious values".

[lolwatever]

heya kading, fact is none of them apply shareeah.. (atleast not the sort of shareeah you find in quran and hadith).

lebanon has its fair share of corruption, it got screwedup by the civil war.. once upon a time called little paris but that's past i guess..

btw don't be too saddened, the prophet told us that there wll be a period of tyranny that will be preceded by a tightly guarded monarchy (teh abbasids n umayads) and followed by a caliphate on the path of the prophet Muhammad..

[Trumble]

From a non-Islamic perspective, I would say Turkey, although I couldn't really comment on "high religious values"... particularly if you consider implementing Sharia law to be a pre-requisite for that. Their human rights record has historically been poor, but they are making strenuous and genuine efforts to put that right.

[afriend]

Yeah.....They're doing well...but the most perfect country that falls very well into all the categories of questionning is Indo/Malay

[Malaikah]

Lebanon doesnt apply sharia does it? The country is like half christian isnt it? :?

[lolwatever]

yep true.. no different to the other countries around it..
i guess atleast it's upfront about that fact.. the other countries play hypocrite (and they're crap at playing hypocrite too!)

[Abdul Fattah]

I think the origenal question of this thread is flawed since there's a slight contradiction between an islamic and a democratic country.
First of all consider the paradox of democracy: "What if peopel decide they want an undemocratic goverment? " We witness in teh west on a daily basis that rather then democracy being a competetive struglle between morality and ethics that it is in fact a popularity contest. As for Islam/shariah, I acknowledge it to be the most perfect possible system. so that means that any change in the system is for the worse. So an islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms is it not?

[lolwatever]

oh yeh sorry bro ur right... totally scaped me th etopic of this thread, i'm wrong.

yeh btu even democracy as a system, isn't applied anywhere in those countries. i wouldn't even call it a monarchy... its more like a gang show.

[Abdul Fattah]

while I admire every goverment that tries to implement shariah into their juridical system, one must stay aware that that doesn't necesairly make that country Islamic. Just think of all the times religion is abused to control people, to persue personal gain.

[lolwatever]

i agree, just one thing, i don't think ther'es any government that's actually trying lol.. (assuming that trying takes more than just vows and words ;) )

[Abdul Fattah]

true..
Oh, how do I dream of a united nation of Islam again. Like the old caliphate.
Guess we'll have to wait for the return of Isa (pbuh) for that.

[KAding]

I think the origenal question of this thread is flawed since there's a slight contradiction between an islamic and a democratic country.
First of all consider the paradox of democracy: "What if peopel decide they want an undemocratic goverment? " We witness in teh west on a daily basis that rather then democracy being a competetive struglle between morality and ethics that it is in fact a popularity contest. As for Islam/shariah, I acknowledge it to be the most perfect possible system. so that means that any change in the system is for the worse. So an islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms is it not?

Well, not necessarily I believe. The sharia can obviously never be overruled by popular will, but neither is it all encompassing. A state will still have to be ruled and thus needs an executive that deals with the daily matters of the state. This executive will have to be overseen and monitored by a legislative and judicial branch. The legislative will still have to make laws on matters on which there is no divinely inspired law. Furthermore they have to formulate laws based on the sharia. The judiciary will have to make sure all laws the legislative creates are not condradicting the sharia. There is no reason why the executive and legislative branch can not be elected by universal suffrage in an Islamic state.

I believe we must see the sharia is a kind of super-constitution. All constitutions are generally hard to change, in the case of the sharia, it would simply be impossible to change. The sharia is also broader then a traditional constitution of course. But still, there is plenty of room for the popular will in such a system. Or not?

Personally I would be worried though about this excessive focus on unity in Islam. IMHO it has created a general intolerance towards different interpretations of Islamic law.

[Chuck]

"First of all consider the paradox of democracy"
Whatever you want to call, but Islamic system started with voting... first 4 Caliphs of Islam were voted, which is lacking in most Islamic countries. Let's just call it Islamic Democracy for the sake of the argument. In my UAE is better since it has one of the best humanitarian record, but it is semi-democracy. Public elects half of the members of parliament and Monarch select the other half. I don't know for sure, but I think whole parliament in Kuwait is elected by public. Kuwait is not bad either. Qatar is best, govt. spends a lot on their people, but it is not democracy either.

[Chuck]

the case of the sharia, it would simply be impossible to change

Just a correction, sharia in general can be changed, because rules in the sharia depend on fiq. The only things in the sharia that can't change are the specific and clear rules in Quran, but they are not that much.

[mano_the_cat]

none as yet ....

[Abdul Fattah]

Well, not necessarily I believe. The sharia can obviously never be overruled by popular will, but neither is it all encompassing. A state will still have to be ruled and thus needs an executive that deals with the daily matters of the state. This executive will have to be overseen and monitored by a legislative and judicial branch. The legislative will still have to make laws on matters on which there is no divinely inspired law. Furthermore they have to formulate laws based on the sharia. The judiciary will have to make sure all laws the legislative creates are not condradicting the sharia. There is no reason why the executive and legislative branch can not be elected by universal suffrage in an Islamic state.

Well see the problem is you can't expect people to realise what's best for them as teh general public is easely persuaded by fancy talks and nice onliners, just look at how any dictator came to power. I do like your view on shariah as a "superconstitution" though, although I still have doubts that that is enough. We witness in western coutrys that there are frequently laws that contradict the constitution. so who's to say that if you put shariah as a constitution in a democratic system that it won't deviate from it's pure form?
For examples of laws contradicting constitution, just look at how the patriot act is in violation with the first amendment, one of the most basic rules of teh American constitution. Or you could find an example much closer to home. As fro some eyars here in Belgium certain schools do not alow hijab based on the secularisation of education. However the contradicting part of it is that the in the belgium law the secularisation states that each student shall have the liberty of his own belief. So in a way they abused a law to do exactly the opposite of it's purpose.

"First of all consider the paradox of democracy"
Whatever you want to call, but Islamic system started with voting... first 4 Caliphs of Islam were voted, which is lacking in most Islamic countries. Let's just call it Islamic Democracy for the sake of the argument. In my UAE is better since it has one of the best humanitarian record, but it is semi-democracy. Public elects half of the members of parliament and Monarch select the other half. I don't know for sure, but I think whole parliament in Kuwait is elected by public. Kuwait is not bad either. Qatar is best, govt. spends a lot on their people, but it is not democracy either.

Wasn't a succesor apointed by the previous caliphs in the beginning? Not sure though.

[lolwatever]

salamz steve

regarding ur last statement

Abu bakr was voted by the ansar and muhajireen, and before his death he assigned Omar directly to succeed him, but Omar appointed a group of 6 from which a caliph was to be chosen.

so we can see the mechanism of election is flexible so long as it doesn't contradict any islamic teachings :)

take care salamz

[Dahir]

Okay, 20 replies later and we still don't have a consensus, SOMETHING has to CHANGE!

[Chuck]

"Wasn't a succesor apointed by the previous caliphs in the beginning? Not sure though."
Nope. Abu baker (ra) was elected in a commettee; then Umar (ra) elected in a commettee; then Uthman (ra) elected in a commettee; then Ali (ra) got elected but Mawyia and his party split and a fight broke out; then Hussain (ra) was elected, but he didn't want to fight so he handed over the caliphate to Mawyia.

For reference here is something:

Electing Leaders
Now, if a government is by the people, then it only makes sense that the people choose or elect those who will govern on their behalf. Is the notion of elections compatible with Islamic teachings? The answer to this question can be found in the Qur’an’s insistence on using shura, or mutual consultation, in deciding communal affairs (Aal `Imran 3:159, Ash-Shura 42:38), which would include choosing, or if you will, electing leaders to represent and govern on the community’s behalf.

Interestingly, a model exists in Islamic history for Muslims in using mutual consultation as a process of selecting a new leader. When Prophet Muhammad was on his deathbed, many of his Companions urged him to name a successor who would lead the community, but the Prophet refused to do so—a clear indication that he wanted the next leader to be chosen through mutual consultation rather than be imposed upon the community. As such, when the Prophet passed away, the most pressing issue for the community was to choose its next leader. Three Companions were nominated to take the post of khalifah (caliph) and in the end, the Prophet’s closest Companion, Abu Bakr, was chosen to be the community’s new leader. Abu Bakr and his three successors, known collectively as the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, were also chosen in a similar fashion that reflected popular consent. So the idea of choosing a leader in accordance with popular will is certainly not a new idea in the Islamic tradition. As such, the notion of elections is compatible with the idea of an Islamic democracy.

Source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/i...rticle04.shtml

[Hashim_507]

Today, the leaders of muslim world and arab are all currupt. Their are alot of human rights violation in arab world. Those currupt leaders don't have knowledge of the deen of islam, they are enjoying worldly life.

[KAding]

Well see the problem is you can't expect people to realise what's best for them as teh general public is easely persuaded by fancy talks and nice onliners, just look at how any dictator came to power. I do like your view on shariah as a "superconstitution" though, although I still have doubts that that is enough. We witness in western coutrys that there are frequently laws that contradict the constitution. so who's to say that if you put shariah as a constitution in a democratic system that it won't deviate from it's pure form?
For examples of laws contradicting constitution, just look at how the patriot act is in violation with the first amendment, one of the most basic rules of teh American constitution. Or you could find an example much closer to home. As fro some eyars here in Belgium certain schools do not alow hijab based on the secularisation of education. However the contradicting part of it is that the in the belgium law the secularisation states that each student shall have the liberty of his own belief. So in a way they abused a law to do exactly the opposite of it's purpose.

I agree, although obviously preventing such violations of the constitution is the responsibility of the judiciary. Nevertheless, a country needs strong institutions to resist a leader with the wrong intentions. Preventing him from breaching basic rights is not always easy, especially in time of war. But is there an alternative system to prevent such leaders from being selected? Islam as such does not provide a mechanism to select leaders, does it? From what I understand of Islam, and that really isn't all that much, this confusion about the selection of a leader is the source of the split between Sunnis and Shia's?

There is no perfect system to select the leaders of a political entity. Of course elections based on universal suffrage can lead to the selection of the 'wrong' people. But who decides what is right and what is wrong? One would say that perhaps in an Islamic state the political leaders should be selected by the Ulema? But then, who selects the ulema? And how can Muslims make sure the ulema select the proper people?

But I'm geniously curious. Does Islamic law in any way set guidelines on the selection of leaders? I can imagine that it would say that the leader must be a Muslim first and foremost. That race, ethnicity, etc do not matter. That heredity is not allowed, since each person must be judged on his 'deen'? (is that the right word for it?). All this is mere speculation on my part though, perhaps someone with knowledge on the matter could answer the question.

[Chuck]

But I'm geniously curious. Does Islamic law in any way set guidelines on the selection of leaders? I can imagine that it would say that the leader must be a Muslim first and foremost. That race, ethnicity, etc do not matter. That heredity is not allowed, since each person must be judged on his 'deen'? (is that the right word for it?). All this is mere speculation on my part though, perhaps someone with knowledge on the matter could answer the question.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/i...rticle04.shtml (this article has some details)

[Dahir]

Khazakstan!!!


...oh, what, I bet you've got something against Khazakstan, I bet you're going to pull out a human rights red card or something!;D

[north_malaysian]

MALAYSIA

Is the country led by a people-oriented leader?
Dont think so.

Is the country economically stable?
Improving.......

Is the country of reasonable size/population (4Million+)?
We have 26 million Malaysians, and 2 millions non MAlaysians.

Is the country politically pure (minimal corruption) and stable?
NOPE....

Does the country have high religious value?
Give us 20 years, we will be like Americans today.

[KAding]

Does the country have high religious value?
Give us 20 years, we will be like Americans today.

LOL! Do you mean that as a good or bad thing? ;)

[KAding]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/i...rticle04.shtml (this article has some details)

Thanks for the link :).

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

See this as well:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-analysis.html

Regards

[searcheroftruth]

islam and democracy will never be able to exist side by side never ever

[Dahir]

islam and democracy will never be able to exist side by side never ever

Why am I so tired of everybody saying that! Democracy only means the will to choose your own leader in a civil manner and without consequence, that is all! Let's see what we've got; Iran, Syria, Palestine, Somalia (if the interim gov't can win the capital), Turkey, and many others! And for the nations that implement Sharia, Sharia is just a system of law, it has no dealings with government, it's only the judicial branch of gov't, that is all!

If you insist on arguing, I ask you to take the time to GOOGLE: Democracy!

[Abdul Fattah]

Thanks brothers for pointing out my mistake about caliphs being apointed by succesion rather then election. But I still see a difrence with democracy

# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

See the difrence is, when teh caliphs got "elected" they were selected for there piousness, for the correctness ,status, whatever. But the idea was to give them the responsability to uphold the sharia.
In democracy the idea is you elect people for there point of vieuws. And then the electedlite is to "improve" the laws acording to that viewpoint. But in teh shariah there is no romm for such "change".

[Muezzin]

What's the point of another Caliphate with today's politcal climate and the state of the Ummah? It'll only disintegrate into them living like kings and/or just being generally incompetent. I mean, the first Caliphate was freaking awesome for the first few leaders (the companions of the Prophet SAW), but it was all downhill as soon as new guys started building palaces and stuff. I mean, what the heck is this?

[Abdul Fattah]

well I didn't mean to gloryfy them, my point was just toshow that Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms.

[Ghazi]

What's the point of another Caliphate with today's politcal climate and the state of the Ummah? It'll only disintegrate into them living like kings and/or just being generally incompetent. I mean, the first Caliphate was freaking awesome for the first few leaders (the companions of the Prophet SAW), but it was all downhill as soon as new guys started building palaces and stuff. I mean, what the heck is this?

:sl:

It's better then nothing maybe then the ummah will stop using "WE NEED A CALIPHATE!" Excuse so often regarding issues which effect the ummah and also only allah knows how it'd turn out.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

well I didn't mean to gloryfy them, my point was just toshow that Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms.

Only when one thinks of democracy in the restricted sense of its application in western culture. The Islamic state is founded upon many democratic principles though the Shari'ah remains the unchanging constitution of the state:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-analysis.html

[Woodrow]

islam and democracy will never be able to exist side by side never ever

Yet, in a Democracy if the majority of the population is Muslim an Islamic rule will be voted into power.