Islam and Democracy: Compatible or Incompatible?

Is Islam compatible with democracy?

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
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..
 
Zulkiflim said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Keltoi said:
I will paraphrase George Washington, who said "There is no better way to ensure peace than to prepare for war."
Click to expand...
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, § 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, §§ 9 and 10, and the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment, Series A no. 94, pp. 35-36, § 72
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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!!
 
Last edited:
Keltoi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
duskiness said:
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!!
Click to expand...

I learn something new every day. I'm sure you're right, Washington did infringe upon Vegetius's copy rights.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dougmusr said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Fi_Sabilillah said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Keltoi said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Compatible 36 73.47%
Incompatible 13 26.53%
Click to expand...
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%
 
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.
 
: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
 
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.
 
Ansar Al-'Adl said:
... the laws of a democracy are subject to change with the societal norms, while the laws of Islam are permanent and divine in origin.
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
Last edited:
guyabano said:
why Islam never evolute, as it sticks on old laws which do not fit anymore into our millenium
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top