Best Islamic Democracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dahir
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 40
  • Views Views 8K
KAding said:
Well, not necessarily I believe. The sharia can obviously never be overruled by popular will, but neither is it all encompassing. A state will still have to be ruled and thus needs an executive that deals with the daily matters of the state. This executive will have to be overseen and monitored by a legislative and judicial branch. The legislative will still have to make laws on matters on which there is no divinely inspired law. Furthermore they have to formulate laws based on the sharia. The judiciary will have to make sure all laws the legislative creates are not condradicting the sharia. There is no reason why the executive and legislative branch can not be elected by universal suffrage in an Islamic state.
Click to expand...

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

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

regarding ur last statement

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

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

take care salamz
 
Okay, 20 replies later and we still don't have a consensus, SOMETHING has to CHANGE!
 
"Wasn't a succesor apointed by the previous caliphs in the beginning? Not sure though."
Nope. Abu baker (ra) was elected in a commettee; then Umar (ra) elected in a commettee; then Uthman (ra) elected in a commettee; then Ali (ra) got elected but Mawyia and his party split and a fight broke out; then Hussain (ra) was elected, but he didn't want to fight so he handed over the caliphate to Mawyia.

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

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

Source: http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article04.shtml
Click to expand...
 
Today, the leaders of muslim world and arab are all currupt. Their are alot of human rights violation in arab world. Those currupt leaders don't have knowledge of the deen of islam, they are enjoying worldly life.
 
steve said:
Well see the problem is you can't expect people to realise what's best for them as teh general public is easely persuaded by fancy talks and nice onliners, just look at how any dictator came to power. I do like your view on shariah as a "superconstitution" though, although I still have doubts that that is enough. We witness in western coutrys that there are frequently laws that contradict the constitution. so who's to say that if you put shariah as a constitution in a democratic system that it won't deviate from it's pure form?
For examples of laws contradicting constitution, just look at how the patriot act is in violation with the first amendment, one of the most basic rules of teh American constitution. Or you could find an example much closer to home. As fro some eyars here in Belgium certain schools do not alow hijab based on the secularisation of education. However the contradicting part of it is that the in the belgium law the secularisation states that each student shall have the liberty of his own belief. So in a way they abused a law to do exactly the opposite of it's purpose.
Click to expand...

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

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

But I'm geniously curious. Does Islamic law in any way set guidelines on the selection of leaders? I can imagine that it would say that the leader must be a Muslim first and foremost. That race, ethnicity, etc do not matter. That heredity is not allowed, since each person must be judged on his 'deen'? (is that the right word for it?). All this is mere speculation on my part though, perhaps someone with knowledge on the matter could answer the question.
 
KAding said:
But I'm geniously curious. Does Islamic law in any way set guidelines on the selection of leaders? I can imagine that it would say that the leader must be a Muslim first and foremost. That race, ethnicity, etc do not matter. That heredity is not allowed, since each person must be judged on his 'deen'? (is that the right word for it?). All this is mere speculation on my part though, perhaps someone with knowledge on the matter could answer the question.
Click to expand...
http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article04.shtml (this article has some details)
 
Khazakstan!!!


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

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

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

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

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

Does the country have high religious value?
Give us 20 years, we will be like Americans today.
 
islam and democracy will never be able to exist side by side never ever
Click to expand...

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

If you insist on arguing, I ask you to take the time to GOOGLE: Democracy!
 
Thanks brothers for pointing out my mistake about caliphs being apointed by succesion rather then election. But I still see a difrence with democracy
# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
Click to expand...

See the difrence is, when teh caliphs got "elected" they were selected for there piousness, for the correctness ,status, whatever. But the idea was to give them the responsability to uphold the sharia.
In democracy the idea is you elect people for there point of vieuws. And then the electedlite is to "improve" the laws acording to that viewpoint. But in teh shariah there is no romm for such "change".
 
What's the point of another Caliphate with today's politcal climate and the state of the Ummah? It'll only disintegrate into them living like kings and/or just being generally incompetent. I mean, the first Caliphate was freaking awesome for the first few leaders (the companions of the Prophet SAW), but it was all downhill as soon as new guys started building palaces and stuff. I mean, what the heck is this?
 
well I didn't mean to gloryfy them, my point was just toshow that Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms.
 
Muezzin said:
What's the point of another Caliphate with today's politcal climate and the state of the Ummah? It'll only disintegrate into them living like kings and/or just being generally incompetent. I mean, the first Caliphate was freaking awesome for the first few leaders (the companions of the Prophet SAW), but it was all downhill as soon as new guys started building palaces and stuff. I mean, what the heck is this?
Click to expand...

:sl:

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

Similar Threads

Back
Top