I wanted to know about governmence and Islam, I know that we should all obey Sharia Law and use that law for every Muslim majority countries. But regarding government and election.
What does Islam say about election and democratic voting to pick a leader. Also what does Islam say about Dictator type government, marxist, socialism etc.
Countries now days are voting for leaders and making political parties. But what about Dictatorship while using Sharia Law.
Also regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia their government type is family kingdom where a family is in control of a country, i personally think its good cause Saudi Arabia is not like all other Islamic countries because its where the the two great and important cities are located therefore elections and stuff like that is a waste of time. What do you think?
'To non-Muslim will free to comment'
(I like dictatorship by the way its more efficient)
Its conditional. Dictatorship in the hands of arrogant and inhuman rulers has proven to be a threat to humanity in the past.
Also dictatorship in non muslim nations would cause a lot of trouble to muslims.
Islam and democracy by Abdur Rahim Green: www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=J8kBSPdCtQc
Its conditional. Dictatorship in the hands of arrogant and inhuman rulers has proven to be a threat to humanity in the past.
Also dictatorship in non muslim nations would cause a lot of trouble to muslims.
Islam and democracy by Abdur Rahim Green: www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=J8kBSPdCtQc
Interesting, what would you think about "benevolent despotism"?
Nihil deus nisi Allah, Muchammad est Nuntius Allahi.
Timeo quod: mea voluntas pro pace inter hominibus possit ferre me a Gehennam.
A Caliphate is the only government supported in Islam. So Saudi Arabia would be the best now because a king rules and is helped by the Grand Mufti. Iran would be the second best Islamic government even though it has a democratic element but overall is ruled by a theocracy.
Basically the best government is one that starts with warlords who with wit and social skills and fortitude rally support until they become conquerors and king by their own hand, for example Ghengis Khan, Tammerlane etc.
With democracy you just end up with liars and movie stars, they become leaders but they have never lead men they are made popular by the media which is owned by the plutocrats. So democracy is nothing but an oligarchy with expensive elections and substanceless figureheads.
Marxism and socialism are anti religious and anti private property, these systems work by the state is great not God is great principle. They are considered as Anti Christ systems. Munkar
A Caliphate is the only government supported in Islam. So Saudi Arabia would be the best now because a king rules and is helped by the Grand Mufti. Iran would be the second best Islamic government even though it has a democratic element but overall is ruled by a theocracy.
Basically the best government is one that starts with warlords who with wit and social skills and fortitude rally support until they become conquerors and king by their own hand, for example Ghengis Khan, Tammerlane etc.
With democracy you just end up with liars and movie stars, they become leaders but they have never lead men they are made popular by the media which is owned by the plutocrats. So democracy is nothing but an oligarchy with expensive elections and substanceless figureheads.
Marxism and socialism are anti religious and anti private property, these systems work by the state is great not God is great principle. They are considered as Anti Christ systems. Munkar
Salaam
First of all saudi arabia is a monarchy - another thing you have to understand is that Islam does not believe theocracy - Even when the Caliphate ruled - they had something called a majlis ashura - or a council which would sometimes sit down and choose who would be the next ruler and decide on important things about the state.
the best governments are not warlords - they are running the show now.
Your right that a messed up democracy can be a very dangerous thing indeed - especially if it is ran by a corrupt government.
the concept of a benevolent autocratic ruler did exist under Umar Abdul aziz(ra).
IMO any country is ultimatley led by a few people anyway - be it a dictatorship or a democracy.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Ok, The world is changing rapidly and Islamic caliphate is different to what i was talking about, I am talking about one individual islamic country, (caliphate is a strong muslim ummah united under one banner around the world which is so far unlikely to happen in the near future),
Regarding modern era government in a islamic country, democracy is not a answer but a killer towards a nation, some people might say democracy is the best because it considers people's opinions but not all opinions are right. I prefer dictatorship but don't assume the dictatorship like the western countries, for instance take Iraq for example, according to many sources we all know that Iraq had a dictator (saddam hussein may he rest in peace) and look how the country was then, honestly Iraq was the strongest and most successful islamic country, that the western got worried and declared a unfair war against his country to overthrow him but used different story to attack the country.
I still favour dictatorship that follows the sharia law -> best type of governance for a muslim country.
democracy is good for countries where there are many groups wanting different things.
the problem with caliphate is that the caliphs have a horrible history of corruption. A council that represents the people and oversees the caliph would work best if the vast majority of the people are in favour of shariah law. This way if the caliph goes corrupt, he can be removed or if he becoems to oppressive. there is an opinion i've read from some scholars that say a muslim should obey a caliph no matter how oppressive he is so long ashe does not go beyond the fold of islam or create laws that go beyond islam (which I guess makes him a non muslim by default?). This is probably not the best way to run things x)
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
-Plato
First of all saudi arabia is a monarchy - another thing you have to understand is that Islam does not believe theocracy - Even when the Caliphate ruled - they had something called a majlis ashura - or a council which would sometimes sit down and choose who would be the next ruler and decide on important things about the state.
the best governments are not warlords - they are running the show now.
Your right that a messed up democracy can be a very dangerous thing indeed - especially if it is ran by a corrupt government.
the concept of a benevolent autocratic ruler did exist under Umar Abdul aziz(ra).
IMO any country is ultimatley led by a few people anyway - be it a dictatorship or a democracy.
A good post ....I wrote my post in haste so my facts are not spot on.
Globalization is a growing force so world powers have direct influence in all weaker nations. So democracy seems to be pushed the hardest now as it suits the Zionist West. The East is rising and the tendrils of power and influence are coming from there hard and fast. Individual countries are losing their individuality and are being absorbed by these powers. So the question is not what is the best Islamic government? But will there be any Islamic governments in the future? Are there any now or have they all sold out?
Any form of government in which power is vested in a small number of people for an unspecified period of time is ripe for corruption, whether you call it a dictatorship, a monarchy, or a theocracy.
Even a form of government run by Mohammad himself fell into civil war not long after his death. If you concentrate the power into the hands of the few then it makes it easier for corruption of ideals to take place.
By such systems you are placing the trust and responsibility on a select few people. I prefer a system in which the checks and balances keep too much power out of the hands of the few for extended periods of time while also limiting the damage that they could do. I prefer giving power to a system over giving power to a single person, or even a handful of people.
Monarchies and dictatorships have long history of oppression of the minorities, up to the current day.
Any form of government in which power is vested in a small number of people for an unspecified period of time is ripe for corruption, whether you call it a dictatorship, a monarchy, or a theocracy.
Even a form of government run by Mohammad himself fell into civil war not long after his death. If you concentrate the power into the hands of the few then it makes it easier for corruption of ideals to take place.
By such systems you are placing the trust and responsibility on a select few people. I prefer a system in which the checks and balances keep too much power out of the hands of the few for extended periods of time while also limiting the damage that they could do. I prefer giving power to a system over giving power to a single person, or even a handful of people.
Monarchies and dictatorships have long history of oppression of the minorities, up to the current day.
Its intresting you didnt talk about democracies - which have a history of corruption as well - not only that it can easily be argued that every governing system as been ran by a few people.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
In a democracy, or a republic, those in power are often voted out of power. That is not the case with monarchies or dictatorships.
Sure, all systems have their corruptness, but when the people in power do not change very often then that corruption becomes part of the system itself, and it is difficult to do anything to those in power.
Under a dictatorship or monarchy if the leadership is abusing their power or doing a poor job there is little to no legal recourse to change it. In a democracy there is. Look at Nixon, Clinton, Andrew Johnson, and Gray Davis as just a few examples.
In a democracy the leaders have to follow the law. In a monarchy, a dictatorship or a theocracy the leaders are the law.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Types of Government and Islam?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks