Islam and Democracy

[Grace Seeker]

Folks, this thread is difficult enough to keep from slipping into attack mode even when it is NOT made personal. Can we just drop these last few comments and move on, please.


One of the things that I see that is keeping us from really addressing this is that quite a few are thinking not in the abstract, but projecting different present governments into the picture.


Just for the record, a democracy can and has elected many different types of leadership. Chile elected a communist government in 1970. Hitler came to power in a democracy as well. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from writing a constitution based on Sharia law.

But I wonder if, in the long wrong, the principals of democracy -- one man, one vote (except in Chicago) -- are perhaps diameterically in opposition to the priniciples of Islam --submit to God's will -- for it would just be coincidence if what was understood as the will of God and the will of the majority were the same. At some point in time the chances are that they would be different, and then the principles of each system would be in opposition to one another. And would men (and women) living in an already existing democracy be willing to give up their right to self-determination and surrender it to a set of laws, albiet even from a God they might believe in, if they did not have confidence in those who would be interpreting God's law for them and be able to replace them if they did not?

 

[Malaikah]

I know that fact and interpretation of the Sharia. But the world doesn´t stop and new situations arrive.... the Sharia rules the traffic in the streets or it was man made laws? Sharia rules the food quality standards? and so on...

What most people don't realise is that very few laws are written in stone in Islamic law, and all other laws are determined by the relevant law making authority of the country, including the examples you mentioned (road and food safety). The world is changing and Islamic law takes that in to account, hence why it can be applied at any time and place. So why some of the laws are man-made, the presence of these man made laws is not against Shariah, but a part of shariah.

So you have always a set of "man made laws", that of course, don´t contradict the Sharia, but if that can´t be "questioned", it will never "improve".

Of course the man-made laws can be questioned and improved! What can't be changed, for example, are the principles on which Islamic law based, and the fixed laws.

Islamic law is actually very flexible, something people don't realise.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Of course the man-made laws can be questioned and improved! What can't be changed, for example, are the principles on which Islamic law based, and the fixed laws.

Islamic law is actually very flexible, something people don't realise.

So, let's take the results of a poll among Malaysians Muslims listed in another thread:

Who should have the authority to monitor and punish Muslims for immoral behaviour?
Religious Authority - 44%
Family - 33%
Others - 21%


Now that was taken just of Muslims. If we had the view of non-Muslims, it might be that the majority says that it should be family, and not a religious authority that punishes Muslims for immoral behavior. Am I correct in assuming that this would be contrary to Islamic law? So, then what happens. How flexible is it at that point in time?

 

[Malaikah]

So, let's take the results of a poll among Malaysians Muslims listed in another thread:

Firstly, I would just like to make it clear that polls like this don't mean much. The general public is not qualified to make those kind of decision. That is the role of law makers and people who must study the law for many years

If we had the view of non-Muslims, it might be that the majority says that it should be family, and not a religious authority that punishes Muslims for immoral behavior. Am I correct in assuming that this would be contrary to Islamic law? So, then what happens. How flexible is it at that point in time?

I'm really not sure what you mean. Is what contrary to Islamic law?

 

[wilberhum]

Just for the record, a democracy can and has elected many different types of leadership. Chile elected a communist government in 1970. Hitler came to power in a democracy as well. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from writing a constitution based on Sharia law.

If a constitution became based on Sharia law, it would no longer be a true Democracy. And if the new government was "Based" on Sharia law and was not a perfect implementation, it would not be an Islamic state.

If you mix the two, you end up with neither.

 

[KAding]

If a constitution became based on Sharia law, it would no longer be a true Democracy. And if the new government was "Based" on Sharia law and was not a perfect implementation, it would not be an Islamic state.

If you mix the two, you end up with neither.

Thats not true. If you mix them you get a mix . Liberal democracy as we try to practice it in the West is also a mix obviously. It is also not a 'true' democratic system. Heck our whole system is based on an elected elite, all aimed at preventing the 'tyranny of the majority'.

That mixing means that you don't have a 'pure' system is really only relevant to fundamentalists. I think mixing democracy with Sharia is quite possible, both doctrines simply have to make compromises.

For example: a nice mix
- Allow the majority (ie the people) to interpret Islamic law (rather than scholars). In other words, let the people elect law makers and scholars every few years or even hold referendums on matters of religious interpretation. "Do you believe Islam allows women to drive cars?" Yes/No P)
- Elect Imams/Caliph with limited terms
- Have an independent judiciary that is appointed by the elected rulers/parliament

Sure, it will not be 100% Islamic, simply because perhaps 'the people' aren't really in a position to interpret Islamic law properly. And yes, it isn't 100% democratic because in the end 'the constitution' (ie Sharia) will be virtually impossible to change (though interpretation can evolve over time).

 

[wilberhum]

Thats not true. If you mix them you get a mix .
.......................................
Sure, it will not be 100% Islamic, simply because perhaps 'the people' aren't really in a position to interpret Islamic law properly. And yes, it isn't 100% democratic because in the end 'the constitution' (ie Sharia) will be virtually impossible to change (though interpretation can evolve over time).

Sure, it will not be 100% Islamic and we will continue to here how evil it is because it is not 100% Islamic. :-\

But if there is an experiment I truly hope that it is done in a Muslim Country.

 

[jd7]

KAding “I think mixing democracy with Shari is quite possible, both doctrines simply have to make compromises”.

I have to disagree. In Islam the balance of the individual rights verses the over riding demands for state’s rights/security is, and always will be, by far balanced in favor in the states favor.
Islam will always limit the non-Muslim in favor of the Muslim. No open and fair democracy can survive that in the long term. (Fair= one man-one freely given vote.)


Now if you want to discuss some sort of hybridized democracy, you must address' the limited voice of the minority.

Your posits only address populations that are in agreement with remaining as second class citizen. Expecting people to desire to remain a second class citizen has failed over and over. Look at what happened in South Africa, or Gandhi in India.

Freedom to offer/voice opposing opinions is part and parcel to democracy, even if they happen to hate Islam.

Islam doesn’t tolerate that.

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of individuals rights of freedom of expression and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

If it isn’t free and open….it is a dictatorship to one degree or another.

Islam will tolerate dictatorship, but it will not tolerate an open and free diverse populace.

I don’t intend to insult anyone with this post and my apologies to anyone who may have taken offense at this post.

 

[jd7]

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of individuals rights of freedom of expression and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

The above sentence should read:

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of the individuals rights of freedom of expression of ideals incompatible with Islam and state security, and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Firstly, I would just like to make it clear that polls like this don't mean much. The general public is not qualified to make those kind of decision. That is the role of law makers and people who must study the law for many years



I'm really not sure what you mean. Is what contrary to Islamic law?

That family, rather than religious authorities, would have the power to punish people for immoral behavior.

 

[Malaikah]

That family, rather than religious authorities, would have the power to punish people for immoral behavior.

Thanks for clarifying, and I don't know what the answer to that, sorry.

 

[Bittersteel]

Islam doesn’t tolerate that.

criticism is allowed,bashing or insulting isn't.that is as far as I know;however nowadays criticism of Islam even is hated by Muslims (which is something else).

BTW,mode of governance doesn't matter if justice is not served.

 

[wilberhum]

criticism is allowed,bashing or insulting isn't.that is as far as I know;however nowadays criticism of Islam even is hated by Muslims (which is something else).

BTW,mode of governance doesn't matter if justice is not served.

If Islam is from god, criticizing Islam is equal to criticizing god, which is blasphemy which is punishable by death.:?

 

[KAding]

KAding “I think mixing democracy with Shari is quite possible, both doctrines simply have to make compromises”.

I have to disagree. In Islam the balance of the individual rights verses the over riding demands for state’s rights/security is, and always will be, by far balanced in favor in the states favor.

Thats only because you define 'democracy' as 'liberal democracy', which is a very modern Western approach to the matter. Democracy does not imply individual liberty, this is simply a dominant element we added in the West. If certain totalitarian rules are deemed Islamic by the majority then there really isn't anything undemocratic about implementing them. It's anti-liberal, but not anti-democratic.

Islam will always limit the non-Muslim in favor of the Muslim. No open and fair democracy can survive that in the long term. (Fair= one man-one freely given vote.)

Thats a good point. The position of a non-Muslim in an Islamic state is a matter of concern. Would they have the right to vote? In a sense a non-Muslim in an Islamic state is similar to a non-citizen in any modern state, in that their political rights are quite seriously curtailed. This would certainly be a legitimate concern when attempting 'Islamic' democracy in a country with a sizable non-Muslim minority.

But then again, is there anything in Islamic scripture that explicitly bans non-Muslims from participating actively in politics? There would still be room for non-Muslim participation in all those matters on which there is no 'divine' law. And perhaps there are alternative solutions, for example, whereby non-Muslims can request to be exempted from certain rules or whereby they have their own political institutions limited to their group.

Now if you want to discuss some sort of hybridized democracy, you must address' the limited voice of the minority.

Your posits only address populations that are in agreement with remaining as second class citizen. Expecting people to desire to remain a second class citizen has failed over and over. Look at what happened in South Africa, or Gandhi in India.

I largely agree, as long as these non-Muslims are natives of the land anyway. From a democratic point of view I think it is quite reasonable for a Muslim majority to demand that immigrants follow integration courses and eventually do the Shahada and pledge that "that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger". Again, Islamic democracy would not be liberal, at least, as long as the majority of the Muslims does not interpret Islam as being liberal.

Freedom to offer/voice opposing opinions is part and parcel to democracy, even if they happen to hate Islam.

Islam doesn’t tolerate that.

It is not illegal for non-Muslims in an Islamic state to disagree with Islamic doctrine. It is illegal to insult the messenger, yet how does that infringe on their democratic rights? And it is illegal to commit treason. Is there anything in Islam that would prevent non-Muslims from rationally discussing state policies? As long as you do not attempt to overthrow the Islamic order you'll be fine. Keep in mind that most liberal democracies on this planet do not condone hate-speech either, nor do they condone those who plot or call to overthrow the liberal-democratic order.

Given Islam’s un-balanced views of individuals rights of freedom of expression and mans propensity for evil, Islam and a free and open democracy are incompatible.

If it isn’t free and open….it is a dictatorship to one degree or another.

Islam will tolerate dictatorship, but it will not tolerate an open and free diverse populace.

I don’t intend to insult anyone with this post and my apologies to anyone who may have taken offense at this post.

But again, democracy does not need to be liberal or pluralist. Democracy at it's core is about the rule of the majority, the empowerment of the people on matters of the state. It is about elected rulers or even direct democracy. In ancient Greece, the supposed cradle of democracy, there were no civil rights either.

I agree with you that the issue of non-Muslims is an important one. If there are too many of them it would certainly de-legitimize the Islamic democratic state. Although, again, it would depend on what political rights these non-Muslims would actually have. There might be implementations thinkable that alleviate many of these concerns. The way Islam seems to grant jurisdiction of non-Muslims over their 'own kind' on family law and such might provide an opening.

in short, here is how I see it:
- Mixing liberalism with democracy: Quite a natural mix that has proven to be feasible, despite the obvious incompatibility between 'individual liberty' and 'majority opinion'. In our systems it is virtually impossible for the majority to take away the rights of a individuals, because of a separation of powers and a difficult to alter constitution. Our systems are designed to prevent a tyranny of the majority. We have essentially curbed 'the will of the people' (and thus democracy) in that regard.

- Mixing Islam with democracy: An Islamic democracy would be structured to prevent laws from being un-Islamic. Whether something would be considered un-Islamic is for the Ummah as a whole to decide. For that they would elect rulers that would be forced to consult the people (shura) and they would elect representatives that would interpret Islamic doctrine. These representatives would then make actual laws based on these interpretations and on matters on which there is no divine 'inspiration'. The 'will of the people' is essentially limited by how far interpretation of Islamic scripture can be stretched. But, if you think about it, isn't the Ummah (ie. the people) the most logical candidate to interpret what Islam is?

All said and done though, I would prefer to live in a liberal dictatorial system that respects individual liberty, then in an illiberal democracy, which an Islamic democracy would most likely be! but IMHO it certainly is a feasible mix!

 

[MTAFFI]

Gee, think you could have slipped a few more personal attacks in there?kay:

except for saying that you are simple minded I am not sure where the personal attacks are that you are speaking of.... my most sincere apologies if I offended you, perhaps you would wish to actually respond to the post and show me where my faults are :? The last paragraph was meant to be helpful criticism, I hope this is not what you are referring to.... I also said you are simple minded, gullable and a conspiracy theorist, none of which I think are personal attacks, more like perceptions I have gathered from your posts. Please dont take offense to my perceptions.

 

[Grace Seeker]

One of the things that I could see happening if Islam was to try to operate using some democratic form of goverment, is that it might created schisms within Islam. Surely no two people ever think completely alike. Thus, though many people are like-minded, they will still have points of differences. This is going to be true whether they are Muslims or not. Thus, one has both Benazir Bhutto and Osama binLaden claiming to be Muslims. Yet, their views of what it means to be Muslims and practice Isalm are not compatible with each other. The result is that those who agree with binLaden's view of Islam and wish to go in that direction say that Bhutto is not a true Muslim. And those that agree with Bhutto say the same about binLaden. And even on this very forum we can see this sort of disagreement.

Now, if one operates any form of democracy in Islam, one either has to give voice to all sides and find some way to tolerate those that one disagrees with....OR
One takes a radically exclusive stand and casts as outside the Ummah all those that don't fit one's own acceptable definition of what it means to be Muslim. But then, how narrowly does one draw that circle? Does one say that Turks who drink and enjoy music are not true Muslims? Does one say that western women who don't wear the scarf at all times and places are not true Muslims. Does one say that Saudi business men who on business trips visit women other than their wives for entertainment purposes are not true Musilms?

Interestingly, in Malaysia they seem to be taking the opposite approach, saying that a person who decides that she does not wish to remain in the Ummah cannot leave it. Or that to be Maylay is to automatically be Muslim, and those who cease to be Muslim also therefore cease to be Maylay. Quite interesting how that works. I must have missed that session in my genetics class.

 

[north_malaysian]

Interestingly, in Malaysia they seem to be taking the opposite approach, saying that a person who decides that she does not wish to remain in the Ummah cannot leave it. Or that to be Maylay is to automatically be Muslim, and those who cease to be Muslim also therefore cease to be Maylay. Quite interesting how that works. I must have missed that session in my genetics class.

It's "Malay" not 'Maylay":giggling:. The Malays belong to the Malayo-Polynesian race. How to recognise a Malays? Have you ever seen the Hawaiians or Samoans. The pure Malays looks like them.

In Malaysia, all Muslims who habitually speak Malay Language are known as "Malays". Whether you're Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indians, Chinese, Khmers, Thais... as long as you're Malaysian citizen, born Muslim and speak Malay. Automatically you're a Malay ang have lots of special previleges.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It's "Malay" not 'Maylay":giggling:.

Apologies for my spelling.

In Malaysia, all Muslims who habitually speak Malay Language are known as "Malays". Whether you're Arabs, Persians, Turks, Indians, Chinese, Khmers, Thais... as long as you're Malaysian citizen, born Muslim and speak Malay. Automatically you're a Malay ang have lots of special previleges.

That is an even more interesting genetics class than I would have imagined. In fact it sounds more like political science than biology.

The Malays belong to the Malayo-Polynesian race. How to recognise a Malays? Have you ever seen the Hawaiians or Samoans. The pure Malays looks like them.

I have a friend from Malaysia. My guess is they look a little like him, though he is also part Chinese. But I have seen other pictures of people on the streets of Kuala Lumpur as well. But what I am hearing you say is that according to the state, a person could be of pure Malayo-Polynesian descent, but if they don't habitually speak Malay or are not Muslim that the state won't recognize them. Sort of sounds like the way the US Department of Agriculture classifies a tomato as a vegetable rather than a fruit. It has everything to do with politics and very little to do with science or truth.

 

[jd7]

KAding, I understand and can agree with your statements, however only in the abstract. I don’t believe it would work for any length of time in practical application.

What are your thoughts on Iran’s government? I can see where certain aspects of it might fit your model.

Also would your model work very well if there were an equal mix of Muslim sects?

Given man’s tendencies to do what we do, seek power and attempt to control our neighbor (probably the same thing down deep.) for our own selfish ends, would your model work without a lot of hard police tactics? A police state is what comes to mind.

A comment or two concerning some statements:

From a democratic point of view I think it is quite reasonable for a Muslim majority to demand that immigrants follow integration courses and eventually do the Shahada and pledge that "that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger".

What would you fore see the punishment to ultimately wind up being if a person refused the pledge? Would that even be legal if there is to be no compulsion in religion?

As to your remarks concerning ancient Greece, I can’t help but think that is a bit of apples to oranges given that modern groups would want the same freedoms that they see in other countries.

One last thing if you don’t mind, does your model fit very well what the USA is trying to implement in Iraq?