PDA

View Full Version : Islam and Democracy: Compatible or Incompatible?



Ansar Al-'Adl
02-03-2005, 04:28 PM
:sl:
You can post your opinions here and insha'Allah I will add some articles.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
aamirsaab
02-03-2005, 04:40 PM
ah interesting topic.

hmmm... where should i start.
*thinks 4 a moment*

got it.

Islam and democracy huh?
well, first off u cant really have both of them - well u can but u cant. e.g.
say i go and make this new country up...say next to austrlia
lets call it kebab land for now

Now, i am the president of that island. so i make the rules - one man government.
K, so i take islam as THE main government.
major rules:
hijab as compulsory - as it is written in the quran
namaaz ( 5 daily prayers) - also compulsory
Charity
etc
etc

Now, here coems the hard part. How do i implement these strategies effectively
i could make the law so that those who do not follow the rules are ,say, fined
But, will this encourage the people to follow the rules - most likely no
Option 2: i heavily enforce the rules - those who disobey are severly punished i.e beaten up. now this, clearly is barbaric - HOWEVER, majority of the people would listen because of fear of punishment.

So far, in kebabistan, what has happend is this:
1) i have kept the religion going
2) people will obey the rules set due to fear of punishment
3) i have done my duty as a muslim to preach to others - but have i really done that - or- have i enforced the rules too harshly. are people just obeying because of the fear of MY rules...or are they following islam? are people obeying my commands rather than Allah's?

should i therefore use a different policy in kebabistan?
or should it remain as it is?
Reply

Gardens & Rivers
02-04-2005, 04:43 AM
Peace be upon you...

Why is Islam against democracy, or is it? Or...what is your idea of democracy that you don't like it? ???

Gardens & Rivers
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-04-2005, 05:24 AM
Okay...time for me to post articles ;)

For more info: http://www.islamonline.net/english/i.../topic08.shtml

Forming an Islamic Democracy



By Sohaib N. Sultan*

27/09/2004








Before we explore the relationship between Islam and democracy, it is important to understand what exactly the idea of democracy entails because too often the notion of democracy is confused with Western culture and society. As such, analysts often dismiss the compatibility of Islam with democracy, arguing that Islam and secularism are opposite forces, that rule of God is not compatible with rule of man, and that Muslim culture lacks the liberal social attitudes necessary for free, democratic societies to exist.


Arguments that dismiss the notion of an Islamic democracy presuppose that democracy is a non-fluid system that only embraces a particular type of social and cultural vision. However, democracy, like Islam, is a fluid system that has the ability to adapt to various societies and cultures because it is built on certain universally acceptable ideas.


So, what is democracy? In its dictionary definition, democracy is “government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.” As such, elections that express popular consent, freedom of political and social mobilization, and equality of all citizens under the rule of law become essential components of a healthy, functioning democracy.



Implementing the laws of God necessitates the role of man who is given the position of God’s vicegerent or representative on earth.



Those who argue against the compatibility of Islam and democracy usually begin by saying that a democracy gives sovereignty or power of rule to the people, while Islam gives sovereignty or power of rule to God, which would not allow for a “government by the people.” In other words, these skeptics believe that the opposite of democracy in relation to a religious political system must be theocracy, meaning the rule of God on earth by a religious authority or class. However, this argument presupposes that there is a single religious authority or class within the Islamic tradition that has special access to God’s will and therefore has the right and power to impose divine will on the land. This is where the argument fails in relation to Islam, because the Islamic tradition, at least in the majority Sunni teaching, does not recognize a pope-like figure, nor does it preach the establishment of a religious class that has special access to divine will.


In fact, to the contrary, it can be argued that the Qur’an warns against the establishment of a religious class. The Qur’an says that past religious communities took their religious leaders [for their lords beside God]* (At-Tawbah 9:31) and accuses many in the religious class of Jews and Christians of stealing people’s wealth and turning people [away from the path of God] (At-Tawbah 9:34). Furthermore, Muslims believe that after Prophet Muhammad there is no one who has direct access to God’s will, and therefore no one person or group has the legitimacy or authority to claim a pope- or priesthood-like status in the Muslim community. As such, Islam’s political system is not a theocracy.


There is no doubt that an Islamic political system would be bound by the laws, principles, and spirit of the Qur’an and Sunnah, which would serve as the overarching sources of a constitution in an Islamic state. Furthermore, violating or going directly against any sacred teaching of Islam could not be tolerated in an Islamic political system, for doing so would be going against the sources of the constitution. So, in this sense God is recognized as the sole giver of law.



The Qur’an insists on mutual consultation in deciding communal affairs which includes choosing leaders to represent and govern on the community’s behalf.


However, implementing the laws of God, as articulated in the Qur’an and Sunnah, necessitates the role of man who is given the position of God’s vicegerent or representative on earth (Al-Baqarah 2:30) because of his superior intellect, ability to acquire knowledge, and ability to exercise free will. All of these God-given qualities enable man not only to implement sacred law, but also to interpret sacred law and derive from sacred sources the wise principles that form the basis of new laws needed for an ever-changing world with new ethical and moral complexities.


As such, the Islamic political system does not entail a struggle or competition for power between God and man. Rather, God and man function with a unified purpose to bring social benefit and civilization-enhancing laws to the world. Simply put, God is the giver of law in Whom sole authority rests, while man, as a collective body, interprets and implements these laws as God’s representatives on earth. As such, the democratic ideal of a “government by the people” is compatible with the Qur’anic understanding of man’s role on earth, and therefore compatible with the notion of an Islamic democracy. It is important to remember, however, that just as man’s ability to govern is shaped and limited by the founding constitution in a secular democracy, the sacred sources of Islam shape and limit man’s ability to govern within an Islamic democracy.


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.


Accountability of Government



Human equality in society and before God is an essential teaching of the Qur’an and a core characteristic of an Islamic ethos.



However, electing leaders to govern is not enough. Holding those who govern accountable is also an essential principle of democracy if government by the people is to work. First, the Qur’anic teaching of mutual consultation does not end in selecting leaders but forms an essential part of governance in which leaders must conduct their affairs in a non-dictatorial manner. Second, leaders are not left to govern based on their own whims and desires; rather their governance must be in accordance with the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah (An-Nisaa’ 4:59), which form the Islamic State’s constitution. Third, the Qur’an mandates that leaders pay back their trusts to those entitled to it (An-Nisaa’ 4:58), meaning that leaders are responsible to the citizens of the land.


Both Abu Bakr and `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, second caliph of Islam, reflected this notion of accountability in their inaugural addresses when they said to their community, “If I follow the right path, follow me. If I deviate from the right path, correct me so that we are not led astray.” So certainly the role and responsibility of the people within a society extends far beyond choosing a leader within the Islamic political system.


Equality and Freedom


The final two pieces to the puzzle of forming a functioning democracy are the essential notions of equality and freedom in society, without which a people cannot truly govern themselves.


The Qur’an says what means [O humankind, we created you from a male and a female, and We made you races and tribes for you to get to know each other] (Al-Hujurat 49:13). In another verse, the Qur’an says what means [And among the signs of God is the … diversity of your languages and colors] (Ar-Rum 30:22). These verses and many more make human equality in society and before God an essential teaching of the Qur’an and a core characteristic of an Islamic ethos. As such, any Islamic political system would necessitate the respect for equality and diversity of all men and women.


We are all born free, which makes freedom our destiny. This is reflected strongly in the Qur’an’s understanding of human free will, which distinguishes man from the rest of God’s creation. The notion of free will necessitates freedom of choice, and this is why the Qur’an so emphatically states [There is no compulsion in religion] (Al-Baqarah 2:256). The Qur’an also encourages the free formation and mobilization of social and political groups when it says [And let there be a people among you who invite to good and enjoin what is fair, and forbid what is wrong] (Aal `Imran 3:104).


Of course freedom, just as in any other functioning society, is not absolute. There are moral, ethical, and spiritual guidelines for what a society can and cannot tolerate as part of freedom. Islam does teach a rather conservative morality on most issues ranging from modesty laws to business transaction laws, especially in comparison to Western cultural trends. But if the universality of democracy and its fluidity are true, then it must be able embrace Islam’s value system, which itself is based on universal truths and social benefit for humanity.


** Sohaib Sultan is the author of The Koran for Dummies.
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
Ansar Al-'Adl
02-04-2005, 05:26 AM
In short, Islam is not against democracy at all. Many muslims and non-muslims alike would be surprised to find that Islam and democracy have much in commonm and are founded on a common set of values. The concept of Shura in Islam is a democratic concept.

There is only ONE difference between Islam and democracy. While both implement laws, the laws of a democracy are subject to change with the societal norms, while the laws of Islam are permanent and divine in origin.

For more info:
http://www.beconvinced.com

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-04-2005, 05:27 AM
Democracy in Islam



By IOL* Team

14/08/2003












Every individual in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers as the caliph of Allah, and in this respect all individuals are equal. “Caliphate” as a term has frequently been used to describe an Islamic political system based on monarchy, while the authentic notion truly refers to the authority of every single Muslim in his human capacity and his right to enjoy dignity and respect.


The notion of khilafah expresses how Islam empowers human beings and also how the government does not enjoy any special rights apart from those delegated to it by the political community.


The Hobbesian conception of the necessity of the State and its priority and seeing it as a condition for civility does not conform to the Islamic perspective. Yes, the formation of a State is a historical process, but the community comes first. No authority may deprive any citizen of his rights and powers.


The agency for running the affairs of the state will be formed by agreement with these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individuals delegated to it. Their opinion should be decisive in the formation of the government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes.


Whoever gains their confidence will undertake the duties and obligations of the caliphate on their behalf (in the form of political representation); and when he/she loses this confidence he/she will have to step down from his/her specific position and be accountable for his/her actions and decisions. In this respect the political system of Islam is a form of democracy, even if it is not a secular one as democracies are usually defined in contemporary political literature.


What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy, therefore, is that the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, while the former rests on the principle of popular khilafah, mixing religious devotion with a notion of democracy and citizenship.


In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet ( Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.
Reply

root
02-06-2005, 02:55 PM
Now people only study for jobs and money.
It is a misrepresentation of a western society if you beleive that.

Another issue is that you claim democracy is a government run for and voted by it's people, then compare a democracy in Islam as divivine. Yet you completely fail to mention that true democracy forbids religous and military powers from serving in a Government?
Reply

Genius
02-06-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by root
It is a misrepresentation of a western society if you beleive that.
I was referring to muslims in particular, I should have made that clear.

Originally Posted by root
Another issue is that you claim democracy is a government run for and voted by it's people, then compare a democracy in Islam as divivine.
I did not make that claim, niether did i make any of the above comparisons.

Originally Posted by root
Yet you completely fail to mention that true democracy forbids religous and military powers from serving in a Government?
So......what's your point?
Reply

aamirsaab
02-06-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by root
Another issue is that you claim democracy is a government run for and voted by it's people, then compare a democracy in Islam as divivine. Yet you completely fail to mention that true democracy forbids religous and military powers from serving in a Government?

THATS EXACTLY WOT I MEAN!

islamic ruling and demcoracy cant co-exist
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-06-2005, 05:03 PM
Root, democracy is not against Islam at all. The laws in a democracy are decided upon, while the laws in Islam are divine. that's the only difference. Both laws are implemented and enforced. A democracy with a majority of muslims would function as an islamic democracy.
Reply

root
02-06-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Root, democracy is not against Islam at all. The laws in a democracy are decided upon, while the laws in Islam are divine. that's the only difference. Both laws are implemented and enforced. A democracy with a majority of muslims would function as an islamic democracy.
Thanks for clearing up the difference between democracy and an Islamic democracy.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-09-2005, 11:40 PM
You mean western democracy and islamic democracy.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-10-2005, 06:54 PM
Salaam hash,
thanks for your post. I think to compare two systems we need to first describe them and their function.

Your major point was that democratic governments have brought much destruction. This has nothing to do with democracy. This is exactly the same logic as those who say that islam supports terrorism because there are muslim terrorists. That's flawed logic and you're maiing the same mistake.

So pointing out such problems does not deal with the issue. We need to describe both systems first.

What is Democracy?

Now you can point out where Islam differs and what is wrong with the above descriptions.

Support your points logically. If you wish to say that they are haraam or unislamic, then support your points with proofs from Qur'an and Ahadith.

:w:
Reply

Chuck
03-10-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally Posted by Hash
:sl:

Oh brother ansar, gaze at logic, it is so simple. Think about it, contemplate the fact that bottom line, conclusion, summary, SIMPLE AS, is this. Democracy, man made, islamic law, allah's law.

Oh my brother, we are on this earth, and the qur'aan states in numerous places, for one reason. To worship allah. To pray to allah, to complete the islamic requirments, to inplement the deen in our lives. How dare we live under a creation 's law and a creation's system, how can we even compare this to the islamic law. The creators law, the creators system.

Jaza'kallah heir.

:w:
Brother you pay too much attention to names, rose is rose no matter what you call it. In Islam, the concept of Ijma is Democracy.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 12:09 AM
:sl: Hash,
Let's examine your points.
Originally Posted by Hash
Even though in reality these "characteristics" of democracy often do not exist, they are very attractive to some Muslims, because they live in suppressive countries where they can be put to death simply for speaking out against their unjust rulers. Muslims around the world need to realize that democracy is just another man-made system that has many faults and defects, and only leads to corruption of the society.
The authour of this article has simply tried to make a generalization about democracy based on the flaws in currect democratic systems. But that is not the definition of democracy. Democracy is freedom, justice, rights, etc. Whether the current democratic countries are following these values is a completely different issue!

The democratic system is built upon the creed of secularism, which separates religion from life's affairs.
No. That is not how democracy is defined. Democracy is built upon the consensus of the people and individual freedom and liberty. This is how democracy is defined. If you disagree, then you are not discussing democracy with me, anymore. You have changed this discussion into alternative meanings of the word 'democracy'.

I have given you the definition of democracy. Let's work with that. You are changing the definition and then saying that it is wrong.

Therefore, the most important element of democracy is the rejection of Allah's (SWT) right to legislate.
Nonsense. In democracy there is a hierarchy of law. In western democracy these laws are simpy accepted values. In Islamic democracy, these laws are the Laws of Allah. Therefore, there is no need to say that a democracy rejects Allah swt.

For example, in a democratic system, it is allowed to establish or make legal things which Allah (SWT) prohibits, such as sexual activity outside of marriage, adultery, gambling, drinking alcohol, and abortion. Men and women can live together without being married. A person can say whatever he wants, even if it goes against righteousness and morality. For example, the Ku Klux Klan can hold public meetings and express their hatred towards African Americans.
This has nothing to do with democracy. The only reason these problems exist is because they are viewed acceptable by the general public.

Let me give you something to consider. Imagine a democracy with a majority of muslims and qualified and united imaams. Would we still have these problems? No. So then, these are not problems with democracy, only with the social values of people.

Another key element of the democratic system is that ruling and the leadership are a collective matter. This means that the affairs of the state are managed through a collective body, which divides authority between the members of cabinet. Because the power of leadership is shared, decision-making and legislation are based on compromise among the people-not on halaal or haraam.
What if the compromise amongst the people is in accordance with halaal and haraam?

Islam, on the other hand, pays no regard to majority rule. All the powers of ruling are in the hands of one person: the Khalifah. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, "If three of you went out on a journey appoint one of you as Amir." (Abu-Dawood) The Khalifah is Allah's representative of His Law on earth, so the Khalifah makes decisions and establishes law based on Islam.
Islam has the same concept of majority, consensus and consultation.

42:38 Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;

Conclusion

After reading this article, you can now see the corruption of democracy/capitalism,
After reading this article, i only saw the ignorance of some muslims.
and how it greatly contradicts with the beliefs and teachings of Islam. Clearly, the system brought to us by the Prophet (saw) is not democratic.
It does not contradict in any way. I await further proof.

Think about it, contemplate the fact that bottom line, conclusion, summary, SIMPLE AS, is this. Democracy, man made, islamic law, allah's law.
Democratic laws follow a superior order of laws in most countries. So if these countries are secular, then these superior laws will be man-made. But if these countries are Muslims, then the superior laws will be the lwas of Allah swt.

So a democracy has minor laws that follow major laws.

In western democracies, these major laws are accepted values.
In Islamic democracies, these major laws are the laws of God.

So this is not a difference between islam and democracy, it is a difference between Islam and WESTERN democracy.

Because democracy is not defined as a man-made system. It just happens that secular democracies follw a man-made system.

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 06:32 PM
:sl:

While there are differences, to say that it is not compatible would be a far stratch. Democracy is founded upon individual freedom and human rights. These values are also central to the Islamic notion of Khilafa. Rather than attempting to change the definition of democracy, let's examine the pillars of democracy.

Government based upon consent of the governed.

Majority rule.

Minority rights.

Guarantee of basic human rights.

Free and fair elections.

Equality before the law.

Due process of law.

Constitutional limits on government.

Social, economic, and political pluralism.

Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.

Islam is perfectly compatible with these values and ideas. You are attempting to produce incompatibility by comparing Islam to the western application of democracy. But democracy is a wide concept and the Khilafa is a democratic system.

However, The Caliphate may appear similar to the western democratic concept with regard to the freedom of elections, voting, and to voice some opinions, but to state that they're compatible is incorrect. The democratic concept result from the liberties, while the Caliphate result from the conditions of the Khilafah contract and every contract. Sovereignty only belongs to the Almighty and we the Caliphs are only His representatives.
That would be a difference between Islam and western democracy. In western democracy, there is still a higher order of laws to which inferior laws must adhere. The difference is that in a secular state, these superior order of laws are decided upon by the public, while in Islam they are the laws of God. I think we both agree on this point.

Shaykh Ja'far Sheikh Idris has summarised the issue nicely:
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.
The western democratic system is solely based to fulfill the will of the people whilst the Caliphate is based to fulfill the will of God.
I agree. But I am not asking if Islam is compatible with the western interpretation of democracy, but rather the concept of democracy as a whole.

I am sure that we both agree on this point.

When we are trying to explain the Islamic concept of Khilafa to non-muslims, it makes it easier for them to understand if we compare it in terms of democracy.

The following article is very informative on the subject. Let me know what you think about it.
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=545

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 06:35 PM
:sl: Hash,
I think the problem is that you are comparing Islam to the western interpretation of democracy. I am just pointing out that in the basic sense, Islam is a democratic system. Please read this article and tell me what you think:
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=545
Reply

kadafi
03-11-2005, 06:37 PM
:w: bro,

If the main point was related to the general concept of democracy instead of the western one, then yes, they do share the same similarities. However, I dislike comparin' the Caliphate system to a democratic system. The Caliphate is unique 'cause it provides solutions for all relationships in society.

And sorry for missin' out words. I type too fast and rarely re-read what I wrote hehe.

:w:


Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 06:41 PM
Yes, I think we are in agreement. The only reason why I am comparing Islam and Democracy is because it helps to explain it to non-muslims. I agree that the Khilafa is much more comprehensive than other political systems. But I think muslims should explain it in a way that non-muslims can appreciate.

:w:
Reply

root
03-11-2005, 07:06 PM
Hi Guys

I wonder what your specific response is to the notion that "Western Democracy" is not a democracy with religous power in that religous leaders are forbidden from standing for government.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 08:22 PM
Originally Posted by root
I wonder what your specific response is to the notion that "Western Democracy" is not a democracy with religous power in that religous leaders are forbidden from standing for government.
Hi root. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Western democracy is secular, and they feel that religion and politics should be isolated.

But Islam is a comprehensive and complete system with guidance in every aspect of our lives. Hence, Islam has given us a political system as well, which is designed to further direct society in righteousness and closeness to God.

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-11-2005, 08:42 PM
Here is the article:


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

root
03-12-2005, 02:08 PM
But Islam is a comprehensive and complete system with guidance in every aspect of our lives. Hence, Islam has given us a political system as well, which is designed to further direct society in righteousness and closeness to God.
True democracy is not built on a Religuos, faith or spiritual guidelines. Democracy is made nervous when we talk such issues as "Complete system with guidence in every aspect of our lives". Guidence becomes a grey area, with control being the key word I think.
Reply

Chuck
03-12-2005, 02:23 PM
root, whats your definition of democracy.

"Complete system with guidance in every aspect of our lives" includes the principles of democracy I don't see a problem.
Reply

root
03-12-2005, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Chuck
root, whats your definition of democracy.

"Complete system with guidance in every aspect of our lives" includes the principles of democracy I don't see a problem.
A democracy cannot be a theocracy. By its very nature a theocracy excludes a segment of society or relegates that segment to subservient status because its faith differs from that declared by the state.

A democracy and theocracy are incompatible, just as fascism and democracy, monarchy and democracy, dictatorship and democracy are also incompatible. A theocracy may use some facets of democracy, but the primary requirement of equal inclusion for all without prejudice can never be attained under a state religious rule.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-12-2005, 06:04 PM
I should think that sunni Islam would be compatable with democracy, although Shiia islam may be less so.

root, A theocracy and Democracy are not entirely imcompatable. They can be combined (as it is easily assumable those who choose theocracy are making the democratic choice of them and their laws as a whole). If you did not believe in, say, islamic law, why would you choose to live in a country of islamic theocracy? You wouldn't. They can elect the religious leaders they choose to moderate the sharia, thus integrating democracy.

This is the same idea as a single party democracy. It is still democracy, even if all the people choose one idea over any other that might surface.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-12-2005, 06:22 PM
:sl:

The Islamic system is certainly not a theocracy. I believe this article by Dr. Jamal Badawi will help:

The Nature of the Islamic Political System

Theocracy vis-à-vis Islam


The political system of Islam is not theocratic because the term “theocracy” implies two basic elements: The first element is the assumption or acceptance of the principle that God alone is the Sovereign of ultimate power. The second part of the definition of “theocracy” is the assumption that there’s a certain priestly class or clergy who claim to be representatives of God on earth, who alone have the right to interpret the will of God, and who in some certain cases are the ones who are supposed to enforce the divine law.


According to the first part of its definition, theocracy is not contradictory with Islam, whose structure is based on the acceptance of the supremacy of God in that His laws are ultimate and His wisdom is infinite. However, the second part of the definition has nothing to do with Islam. In Islam there’s no church as an institution as such, there’s no clergy. Islam doesn’t accept the notion that a particular group of people can claim for themselves to be representatives of God on earth. The entire human race is regarded, in a sense, as representatives of God on earth.


In Islam, legitimacy of any power or institution is derived mainly from people’s acceptance of this legitimacy. In other words, one can’t gain legitimacy as a ruler unless people agree to this, not to have it imposed on them; the people are entirely free to choose their rulers. Islam does not accept a system which involves any kind of dictatorship, nor does it accept a system of monarchy where the power is inherited within the same family. Indeed, one wouldn’t only point out to systems that call themselves monarchies because there are many countries that call themselves republics, but indeed power seems to be circulated only within the elite.


Is the Political System of Islam Democratic?

Whenever a comparison is made between Islam and anything else, we need to remember that Islam is not a man-made idea. Islam is a God-ordained way of life, and as such it reflects the infinite divine wisdom, which is absolutely infallible. With this kind of understanding, Islam, as reflected in the word of God and the sayings of the Prophet—which he also received by way of revelation—present the ultimate truth. It’s not something that anyone can update or change or supersede in any way; it is free from error or else, of course, there wouldn’t be any belief in God. On the other hand, other systems, whether they are democracy, socialism, or otherwise, are man-made ideas or ideologies.


The human being is fallible, his wisdom and knowledge are imperfect. Of course, in any of these man-made ideas there may be certain good ideas. When saying that Islam is similar to democracy, this seems to carry an implication that democracy is “the way,” “the ideal,” and then we go back to Islam to find out whether it meets these ideals or measures up to these standards or not. And that is almost like saying: Let’s take God’s ordained way of life and judge it in accordance with the criteria established by humans. Therefore, democracy and the political system in Islam, although they may have some similarities, are not really synonymous.


Similarities and Differences


Some of the fundamental principles in democracy are similar to Islam: first, the idea or notion of freedom of the people to choose the rulers they want. Another idea that is similar is that of participation in the decision-making process in some form or the other. The third similarity between democracy and Islam is the notion of the removal of some governments which fail to meet the expectations of the people.


The first basic difference between the political system endorsed by Islam and democracy is that in democracy, the ultimate authority lies with the people. In Islam, however, the ultimate authority doesn’t belong to people; it belongs to God alone. That means that both the ruler and the ruled in Islam are subject to a higher criterion for decision-making, that is, divine guidance. If the people—the rulers and the ruled—are truly believers, the final say in the interpretation or understanding of these divine laws would have to be within those laws.


Some might feel or think that this distinction between Islam and democracy is academic or theoretical, but it is not. It has some serious implications. For example: When the majority, in a Western democracy, decide that the drinking age should be lowered to 13 or 14, no matter how harmful this may be, it becomes a law, because that’s what the majority of people want. Under Islamic law, the Qur’an itself prohibits drinking, so it shall be prohibited regardless of what the people want.


Another example regards the rights of minorities. Suppose in a given society the majority of people, who belong to a particular race or class or group, decided to deprive minorities of their rights. Even if the constitution prohibited this, the constitution itself can be changed. So, if a decision is taken to oppress a certain minority or minorities, it could be done under democracy, theoretically at least. Yet, under an Islamic system it cannot happen because the rights of the minorities are rights which are enshrined in the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition, and as such no human being can supersede that.


The Qur’an and Prophetic tradition are the ultimate constitution, which is different from the secular constitution because it cannot be changed. In the secular system the constitution can be changed whenever needed because it’s human-made and there may be better words than the ones that were put in the first place. Whereas, in the case of divine constitution, one cannot say “I know more than God.” In addition, it’s quite clear that democracy seems to go with systems which are basically secular, where the legislation of churches or temples or any religious body has nothing to do with the actual political system. However, the system of government in Islam doesn’t make any distinction between the moral and temporal and the whole notion of secularism is alien to Muslim thinking.


What Is the Political System of Islam?


Some have tried to give the title of “theo-democracy” to the political system in Islam. “Theo-democracy,” in this sense, would reflect an element of theocracy concerning the supremacy of God and His laws. At the same time, it would also reflect the democratic notion that there is no exclusive class and people who can monopolize the interpretation of that system.


A better term, however, has been suggested by Abul-A`la Al-Mawdudi: “popular trusteeship.” This suggests that the entire human race is appointed on this earth to be like trustees or vicegerents of God on earth, and it [trusteeship] is not to be claimed by one individual, group, or class. Rather, it is a collective type or responsibility to fulfill this duty, which means that the rules apply to rulers and ruled alike.


Does the Islamic Model Exist Today?


In order to have what can be called an Islamic political system, it is not enough to simply implement some aspects of Islam, such as the criminal law, while neglecting some more fundamental issues, such as the freedom of the people to choose the rulers. In addition, if penalties are to be applied, they have to be applied impartially


Similarly, it would not be necessarily representative of the true approach of Islam, to restart immediately implementing aspects of criminal law without allowing transitory periods of sufficient time to reform society and move it to the ideals of Islam. The philosophy of criminal law in Islam is not just punishment; it is the idea of creating reform in a society by removing the causes of crime before punishment can be applied. Therefore, before applying the laws, rulers should look into the wisdom of the legislation and the prerequisites to implementing those penalties.


Unfortunately, the complete and perfect model of an Islamic political system does not exist today. But this does not mean that it is a utopian system that exists only in theory. It existed in a complete and perfect form during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and during the reign of the first four Rightly Guided Caliphs. There were ups and downs, but there were some periods when one could actually say that the model was either perfect or as close to perfection as could be expected. In later centuries, however, there have been lots of ups and downs and many deviations. It is very difficult to point out any single model and claim that it represents the true picture of an Islamic political system. Indeed, there are many systems that are quite apart from Islamic teachings and violate the very basic principles on which a truly Islamic political system can be based, although they may claim that they are Islamic.
for more info: http://www.islamonline.net/English/i...icle05.shtml#1

:w:
Reply

root
03-12-2005, 07:24 PM
The Islamic system is certainly not a theocracy
Non the less it is based on a religous faith.

They can elect the religious leaders they choose to moderate the sharia, thus integrating democracy.
A democracy does not allow for Religous or Military post holders to stand for elective representation.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-12-2005, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by root
Non the less it is based on a religous faith.
But that is not the definition of a theocracy.

A democracy does not allow for Religous or Military post holders to stand for elective representation.
Says who? That's not a principle of democracy. That is just a natural outcome of democracy in a secular state.

:w:
Reply

kadafi
03-12-2005, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
I should think that sunni Islam would be compatable with democracy, although Shiia islam may be less so.
Greetings Space,

Please bear in mind that there is no such thing as "two Islams". The Shia sect has nothing to do with real Islam 'cause of 4 simplified reasons (and I do not wish to engage in to further discussions):

1. Aspersion on the Qur'an by claimin' that the Sahaabah ommited verses
2. Aspersion on the Sunnah ('cause they were nararated from the Sahaabah and accordin' to them, the Sahaabah are kaffirs) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
3. They regard Ahl al-Sunnah as Kaffirs and whoever regards Muslims as kaafir, is a kaafir himself.
4. Lastly, grossly exaggerations about Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)

When one mentions the Islamic Khilafa (Caliphate), one should bear in mind that the system is composed of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Those are the two standard sources of the Shariah Law.

Peace
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-12-2005, 07:47 PM
:sl:
And for more info see the sectarian section.
Reply

Khattab
03-12-2005, 08:00 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Greetings Space,

Please bear in mind that there is no such thing as "two Islams". The Shia sect has nothing to do with real Islam 'cause of 4 simplified reasons (and I do not wish to engage in to further discussions):

1. Aspersion on the Qur'an by claimin' that the Sahaabah ommited verses
2. Aspersion on the Sunnah ('cause they were nararated from the Sahaabah and accordin' to them, the Sahaabah are kaffirs) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
3. They regard Ahl al-Sunnah as Kaffirs and whoever regards Muslims as kaafir, is a kaafir himself.
4. Lastly, grossly exaggerations about Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)

When one mentions the Islamic Khilafa (Caliphate), one should bear in mind that the system is composed of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Those are the two standard sources of the Shariah Law.

Peace
Can someone post up the hadeeth where the Proiphet (SWH) said the hour will not come until the later generations of muslims will curse the earlier generation muslims, it could be referring to this?
Reply

kadafi
03-12-2005, 08:08 PM
:sl:,

I've never came across that Hadith. Could you remember the some of the exact wordin' akhi so I could research it.

:w:
Reply

Khattab
03-12-2005, 08:11 PM
I have heard it in many talks on the topic of the hour they say something like, "The hour will not come until the later generations of muslims curse the earlier generations" I looked on google for it, but I know for sure I have heard this more than once
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-12-2005, 08:15 PM
All I could find is the following:

Sahih Muslim
Book 031, Number 6167:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not revile my Companions, do not revile my Companions. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if one amongst you would have spent as much gold as Uhud it would not amount to as much as one much on behalf of one of them or half of it.

If I come across the one you mentioned, i'll let you know, insha'Allah.

:w:
Reply

kadafi
03-12-2005, 08:17 PM
:sl:

All I've found is this vague reference:

"When the latter generations of this Ummah curse its first generations, if someone conceals a Hadith, he has concealed what Allah has revealed." (Ibn Majah).

However, it doesn't provide a detailed reference in order to verify it.
Reply

Khattab
03-12-2005, 08:19 PM
Ok brothers i will look for the talk i heard it in, I think it may be Ahmed Ali's but I will post it up when i find it inshallah
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-12-2005, 11:46 PM
I have read the Shia thread, and found myself unable to post in it.

However, as I begun to read it, I noticed some things that seemed too anti-shiia to be at all objective.

I begun a googe search and found this:
The booklet The Difference Between The Shiites and the Majority of Muslim Scholars, authored by Saeed Ismail, is distributed in English and Arabic by WAMY, in Alexandria, Va. It claims that a fictional Yemeni Jew, Abdullah Ibn Sabaa, conspired with other Jews to create a division in Islam, and planted Jewish ideas which become Shi’a Islam. Its states, “The Jewish conspiracy (among others), represented by Abdullah Bin Sabaa, first influenced Muslims who were less knowledgeable about Islam and later on, spread to the rest of the Muslim community.”
http://www.saudiinstitute.org/index....=126&Itemid=39
In fact, further searching reveals that this is a long standing tradition to place blame on a Jewish conspiracy for the sunni-shiia split. This is both nonsensical and plainly untrue.
Further example can be seen here: http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/i...hp/t-6820.html
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2005, 12:17 AM
Greetings, spacefalcon.

The sectarian section is only for articles, and not discussion, which is why you were unable to post there.

It is a fact that Abdullah bin Sabaa was involved in such a conspiracy against the muslims, but it is certain that he was disobeying Judaism by doing so. Just as terrorists who kill in the name of Islam are actually disobeying Islam.

No Muslim blames Judaism for the split between Ahlus-Sunnah and the Shias, the blame rests on the specific conspirator who just so happened to be a Jew.

The quote you posted says:
and planted Jewish ideas which become Shi’a Islam
That is utter nonsense. I have read the entire article, and at no point does it claim that Abdullah bin Sabaa planted 'Jewish' ideas into Shiaism.

Hopefully, that clarifies the issue.

:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2005, 12:24 AM
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/
Reply

Zulkiflim
12-30-2006, 05:27 PM
Salaam,

Islam is LIFE with rules ,limits and respect..

Democracy is good only if you dont have OIL...LOL

Just note,for me as an asian ,communism and demoracy are evil,brought by the west and caused many war and deaths.

In the desire to find a way of life,both coutner each other,or negate one another,and thus the world is forced to choose.
the otehr cants stand the other.

Even now the US is preparign for war with China.

demoracy and communism ar ethe fruits of the western world upheavel to create a better society.
but what is best for you is not best for all.
thus is the problem of the world today.

En Exaple,the US preaches democracy,but at every turn limit the democratic right of the gay/lesbians ..and claim it is right

when muslim limit the gay and lesbian,we are wrong....WHy?

Your guess is as good as mine..
Reply

Keltoi
12-31-2006, 06:34 AM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

Islam is LIFE with rules ,limits and respect..

Democracy is good only if you dont have OIL...LOL

Just note,for me as an asian ,communism and demoracy are evil,brought by the west and caused many war and deaths.

In the desire to find a way of life,both coutner each other,or negate one another,and thus the world is forced to choose.
the otehr cants stand the other.

Even now the US is preparign for war with China.

demoracy and communism ar ethe fruits of the western world upheavel to create a better society.
but what is best for you is not best for all.
thus is the problem of the world today.

En Exaple,the US preaches democracy,but at every turn limit the democratic right of the gay/lesbians ..and claim it is right

when muslim limit the gay and lesbian,we are wrong....WHy?

Your guess is as good as mine..
I will paraphrase George Washington, who said "There is no better way to ensure peace than to prepare for war." Being prepared to deal with a hypothetical conflict with China is not the same as a military buildup with the intention of going to war with China.

As for the gay and lesbian issue, it isn't a matter of democratic rights, the issue in the U.S. is marriage. Gays and lesbians have just as many democratic rights as the straight voter.
Reply

duskiness
12-31-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I will paraphrase George Washington, who said "There is no better way to ensure peace than to prepare for war."
sounds similar to: qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (or Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum = Let him who desires peace prepare for war). That was Vegetius. I think that G. Washington might have infringed his copy rights... ;)

Have some heard about Refah Partis case before European Human Rights Court? In it's judgment Court said that Sharia law is "incompatible" with democracy.
“70. ... the Court considers that Refah's proposal that there should be a plurality of legal systems (that everyone should subject to his/her relgious law) would introduce into all legal relationships a distinction between individuals grounded on religion, would categorise everyone according to his religious beliefs and would allow him rights and freedoms not as an individual but according to his allegiance to a religious movement.

The Court takes the view that such a societal model cannot be considered compatible with the Convention system, for two reasons.

Firstly, it would do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms and the impartial organiser of the practice of the various beliefs and religions in a democratic society, since it would oblige individuals to obey, not rules laid down by the State in the exercise of its above-mentioned functions, but static rules of law imposed by the religion concerned. But the State has a positive obligation to ensure that everyone within its jurisdiction enjoys in full, and without being able to waive them, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (= European Convention of Human Rights) (see, mutatis mutandis, the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, &#167; 25).

Secondly, such a system would undeniably infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. A difference in treatment between individuals in all fields of public and private law according to their religion or beliefs manifestly cannot be justified under the Convention, and more particularly Article 14 thereof, which prohibits discrimination. Such a difference in treatment cannot maintain a fair balance between, on the one hand, the claims of certain religious groups who wish to be governed by their own rules and on the other the interest of society as a whole, which must be based on peace and on tolerance between the various religions and beliefs (see, mutatis mutandis, the judgment of 23 July 1968 in the “Belgian linguistic” case, Series A no. 6, pp. 33-35, &#167;&#167; 9 and 10, and the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment, Series A no. 94, pp. 35-36, &#167; 72
72. Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements, which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole. It is difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts. ... In the Court's view, a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention.
128...It reiterates that freedom of religion, including the freedom to manifest one's religion by worship and observance, is primarily a matter of individual conscience, and stresses that the sphere of individual conscience is quite different from the field of private law, which concerns the organisation and functioning of society as a whole.

It has not been disputed before the Court that in Turkey everyone can observe in his private life the requirements of his religion. On the other hand, Turkey, like any other Contracting Party, may legitimately prevent the application within its jurisdiction of private-law rules of religious inspiration prejudicial to public order and the values of democracy for Convention purposes (such as rules permitting discrimination based on the gender of the parties concerned, as in polygamy and privileges for the male sex in matters of divorce and succession). The freedom to enter into contracts cannot encroach upon the State's role as the neutral and impartial organiser of the exercise of religions, faiths and beliefs (see paragraphs 91-92 above)
we had a debate about this in class but there were not a single Muslims there...i would like to hear your opinions.

btw: Happy New Year!!
Reply

duskiness
12-31-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
This is the same idea as a single party democracy. It is still democracy, even if all the people choose one idea over any other that might surface.
any example of single party "democracy" that was/is a democracy?
Reply

Zulkiflim
12-31-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I will paraphrase George Washington, who said "There is no better way to ensure peace than to prepare for war." Being prepared to deal with a hypothetical conflict with China is not the same as a military buildup with the intention of going to war with China.

As for the gay and lesbian issue, it isn't a matter of democratic rights, the issue in the U.S. is marriage. Gays and lesbians have just as many democratic rights as the straight voter.
Salaam,

When you prepare for war then you already perceive the other as an enemy and thus in your mind eye,the other is already bad.

Like i said,the cold war is not yet over.

And for the gay/lesbian issue,is it it a democratic right for marriage?
How does one limit democracy according to religion?

Is that then trully democratic?
If a cannibla start to eat dead people in his right of religion,is that then democracy.
KKK/Nazi //are that democracy,,,when does it stop to be legal?


thus democracy and communism are extremes,one wihout law the other mountained by law...opposite.

As i see it and i think as many asian see it.
Reply

Keltoi
12-31-2006, 03:55 PM
Originally Posted by duskiness
sounds similar to: qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (or Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum = Let him who desires peace prepare for war). That was Vegetius. I think that G. Washington might have infringed his copy rights... ;)

Have some heard about Refah Partis case before European Human Rights Court? In it's judgment Court said that Sharia law is "incompatible" with democracy.






we had a debate about this in class but there were not a single Muslims there...i would like to hear your opinions.

btw: Happy New Year!!
I learn something new every day. I'm sure you're right, Washington did infringe upon Vegetius's copy rights.
Reply

dougmusr
01-01-2007, 06:18 AM
There is only ONE difference between Islam and democracy. While both implement laws, the laws of a democracy are subject to change with the societal norms, while the laws of Islam are permanent and divine in origin.
So in Islam, an election would select powerless leaders without the capability of passing new laws since the laws of Islam are divine in origin.
Reply

- Qatada -
01-01-2007, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by dougmusr
So in Islam, an election would select powerless leaders without the capability of passing new laws since the laws of Islam are divine in origin.

We don't need to keep updating our laws, because we already have a perfect law which is suitable for all times and for all cultures since it was revealed.

Therefore no, we don't need leaders to decide what's good for us, we leave that upto Allaah and His messenger (peace be upon him.)


Peace.
Reply

Keltoi
01-01-2007, 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
We don't need to keep updating our laws, because we already have a perfect law which is suitable for all times and for all cultures since it was revealed.

Therefore no, we don't need leaders to decide what's good for us, we leave that upto Allaah and His messenger (peace be upon him.)


Peace.
What about the introduction of new technologies, for example? That is why the U.S. Constitution is sometimes referred to as a "living document", because it can be altered to take things into consideration that the authors could never have imagined. New weapons, new diseases, new cultural and societal realities, all these things change over time. Unless of course you are speaking of a state made up of people all of like mind and disposition, with no significant minority beliefs or religions to cloud the water.
Reply

- Qatada -
01-01-2007, 07:25 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
What about the introduction of new technologies, for example? That is why the U.S. Constitution is sometimes referred to as a "living document", because it can be altered to take things into consideration that the authors could never have imagined. New weapons, new diseases, new cultural and societal realities, all these things change over time. Unless of course you are speaking of a state made up of people all of like mind and disposition, with no significant minority beliefs or religions to cloud the water.

We are open to allow new technologies, cures etc. because what the sharia' doesn't prohibit in form of worldly matters are permitted for us. The innovations we can't make are in matters of worship, however we can make as much innovations in different fields so long as they don't fall into the category of sin.


Therefore new technology, new cures, weapons etc. are given the go to be updated etc. However, we follow the way of the prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions in regard to, living with people of other faiths, politics, applying the law etc. This is because we are allowed to follow our culture, but not step outside the boundaries.

So for instance; in the indian culture - the females family has to give a dowry to the males side of the family if they are to get married, however - within islamic culture it is the male who gives the dowry to the female, therefore the person should follow the islamic way of life over the law of his/her own culture. However, it does not prohibit this couple from doing things in their culture which don't go against the law of the islamic sharia'. And Allaah Almighty knows best.



Hope you understand. :)



Peace.
Reply

wilberhum
02-06-2007, 08:54 PM
Compatible 36 73.47%
Incompatible 13 26.53%
It would be interesting to see the Muslim Non-Muslim split on that. I bet it is
Muslim 36 73.47%
Non-Muslim 13 26.53%
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-07-2007, 11:25 PM
Actually I voted incompatible. This is why:

Although elections are usually popularity-contests in reality; in theory the people of a democracy elect a leader because of the program he has, and the changes he promises to make. The whole idea is based on the following philosophy: "we don't know the perfect way to govern a country, so why don't we try and make changes to our system as we go along. " So a democracy is best in the absence of a better alternative. But that also means that technically speaking, any well-defined governmental system is incompatible with democracy because a democracy will sooner or later alter the well-defined-system.

Let me give an example, the founders of the US took great care for the future with laws like the first amendment to ensure freedom. Then some idiot gets elected and he brings a patriot act that is in violation with that amendment, and he does so under the guise of a war "for freedom". That's why a democracy sucks. As easy it is to make good laws, it's equally easy to make bad ones. And usually the people with the capability of rising to power aren't idealists.

As a Muslim I believe that the theoretical system that Islam proposes is perfect, (I don't mean like an utopia, but as good as it gets) so if you change anything to it, it is no longer perfect, but less perfect as before. That is why the two are incompatible.
Reply

deen_2007
02-07-2007, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
It would be interesting to see the Muslim Non-Muslim split on that. I bet it is
Muslim 36 73.47%
Non-Muslim 13 26.53%
& ur point is?
Reply

FBI
02-07-2007, 11:29 PM
:sl:

Islam is against Democracy, for example Abu Bakar took the Caliphate after consultation was done by other sahaba, we should be able to choose the leaders but it should be done by capability and done by people with sound knowledge not the average layman who has no knowledge of Islam
Reply

Abdul Fattah
02-07-2007, 11:56 PM
Well that's not democratic. Democratic means practically everybody can run and everybody's free to vote. What you're referring to is a concencus between a group of people. It's not the same as a democratic election.
Reply

guyabano
01-03-2008, 10:35 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
... the laws of a democracy are subject to change with the societal norms, while the laws of Islam are permanent and divine in origin.
and that is the reason, why Islam never evolute, as it sticks on old laws which do not fit anymore into our millenium, and some like to wonder, why muslim countries are so few developped, but the West is high industrialized.

...or can somebody show me a pass, where Allah or Mohammed used a cellphone or an Computer ?
Reply

north_malaysian
01-03-2008, 11:21 AM
Originally Posted by guyabano
why Islam never evolute, as it sticks on old laws which do not fit anymore into our millenium
In non-salafi Muslim countries especially like Malaysia, as long as it not contrary to the Koran and Sunnah... Malaysian Muslims are very supportive of new things....

Even our Islamists vowed to defend democracy practices.
Reply

Umm Yoosuf
01-03-2008, 01:39 PM
Thread closed

Threads over 3 days old are considered expired and are subject to closure without notice....
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: 14
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 07:52 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-29-2010, 09:45 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-08-2006, 05:02 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2006, 01:59 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-2005, 08:29 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!