what is democracy?

[AbuFatimah]

"Democracy is the illusion that my wife and I, combined, have twice the political influence of David Rockefeller."
- Butler Shaffer

[Abu Zakir]

"Democracy is the illusion that my wife and I, combined, have twice the political influence of David Rockefeller."
- Butler Shaffer


Good quote, however Democracy is pure fantasy if anyone thinks that voting gives any power to the voter at all. It makes people think they have power in actual fact they are in debt to the banks, taxed and controlled from school to old age. Just keep paying and living the fantasy.

[Abu Zakir]

I'm partial to a bit of cynicism myself but remember most people can afford to be cynics in nice cushy liberal democracies where your human rights are secure, there is a decent legal system that doesn't discriminate and there is a rule of law.

The British government flew people away to be tortured in other countries (this is euphemistically called rendition by the authorities). If the state gives you 'human rights' and you believe it does, it also means they can be revoked by the state. Secular Humanists do not have any absolute beliefs in human rights, they do not hold themselves accountable to a God in a life after death, people in democracies are easily manipulated, their minds and opinions shaped by school and mass media, there is actually very little freedom from state interference. There is more state interference in the life of an individual now in a social democracy than there was in Hitler's Germany. You comparing the dictatorships in the Muslim lands to social democracies is slightly dishonest as it ignores the role played by these same so called democracies in facilitating the dictatorships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS43cgoQLUE
52 seconds long, there is music.

[abd7861]

I'm partial to a bit of cynicism myself but remember most people can afford to be cynics in nice cushy liberal democracies where your human rights are secure, there is a decent legal system that doesn't discriminate and there is a rule of law.

I find it distasteful that our brothers and sisters across the Ummah rose up and fought for their rights in dictatorships while we complain from our ivory towers in Western style democracies. Sometimes I think we take what we have for granted....

I remember talking to an Egyptian friend who expressed great admiration of how the UK justice system operated, how the government really upheld certain rights and whilst I told him that things are far from perfect even within a democratic system he said something very wise. It is human nature for us to stumble and make mistakes, but he argued that in a democratic system like the UK there is always a chance for accountability. What the brother was saying was that in politics and in the grand scheme of organizing human society according to a set of norms perfection can never be achieved but at least there is a series of checks and balances on power to make sure that a citizens' rights are secure.

In the UK, we have mosques of every sect and every Islamic group and they live all in relative social peace - whereas in Pakistan with the same religion there is sectarian chaos. In parts of the Muslim World where there is progress towards a liberal democratic system that is pro-Islam such as Turkey we have social peace and real economic prosperity. Indonesia and Malaysia also come to mind. In Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia alhamdullilah there are some very dynamic and progressive Islamic groups and thinkers that are introducing revival and reform within the society.

I guess the idea of a liberal constitutional democracy with checks and balances is a very realist response to the human condition.

:salam:

Wherein the law of Allah Ta'ala is eviscerated to the nafsaani whims of man!

It is extremely shortsighted nay delusional to cite that due to Islam Pakistan is in sectarian chaos. The last time I checked Pakistan was in the hands of a 'liberal' cabal of pseudo-munaafiqs. If it has changed please enlighten me.

The economic prosperity you mention regarding Turkey is based on riba. Enough condemnation of this is in the Qur'aan:

2: 278-279. O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if ye are indeed believers. If ye do it not, Take notice of war from Allah and His Messenger................

:ws:

[umar_italy]

You clearly have no clue about Pakistani society or the enormous street power the Mullahs have - which is why you can be killed for holding certain religious opinions or forced into exile....

People talking in this way should be flogged in the streets.
Especially if they are deviant Ghamidi-followers as you are.

Shame on you.

[Abu Zakir]

I never claimed perfection - I have no illusions - but if I were to choose to live my live in any country today it would be a country with a functioning constitutional democracy - I don't pretend to have all the answers or believe in building castles in the sky. I find it rich when Muslims living in the UK have these complaints - fair enough it is right to be critical (critical citizenship is a must - to criticise the power of the government) but if you're going to condemn political participation in these countries then go - please go back to the Muslim lands.

Why on earth should I go back to somewhere I was never born? Criticism of so called Democracy is supposed to be the whole point of it, though it is useless when people like you attempt to shut us up by asking us to leave. Why don't you leave because you do no like the presence of people like me. Another great way that democracies keep us under control is by preventing all public criticism of it in any way shape or form, if we do get to express some on forums we have very little impact in comparison to the mass media matrix. I am not asking for perfection, just a decent form of government which does not manipulate and rob the people. And one that does not kill millions abroad through financial and millitary terrorism. Ironic that you admire it.



And your critique of social democracies is very libertarian - this is good but its not ''Islamically ordained''.

It does not need to be Islamically ordained, I converse in the language of politics just so I am understood.




People in theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia can be as easily duped - the human condition is the same everywhere - but democracy is the best option out of some frankly unsavoury options. In a liberal constitutional democracy reform and debate can occur - the judiciary is vigilant in trying to curb the excessive power of the executive.

These are the myths of Democracy. Absolute Power was ordained after the French Revolution...this is the model of the modern State, it can shift into Terror mode in a blink of an eye. Prior to this revolution million man armies conscripted to murder and be killed by the State were unthinkable. The post revolutionary State created Total war and the Absolutist State.


What is your alternative?

Monarchical rule or Personal Rule, where the monarch is in charge and they are responsible to God for their actions.

[umar_italy]

Good luck with this in Italy....and by the way you proved my point why anyone with half a sane mind would not like to live in a Mullahocracy or theocracy or some adolescent utopian quasi-religious fantasy.....

Perhaps you should move to Pakistan inshallah and implement this in Pakistan - you will find alot of like-minded people who behave like vigilantes....

Itay?
Yes, even in "democratic" countries, even many Kuffar understand democracy is wrong, while modernist deviants like you suffering from minority complex wanna import the disease in Muslim lands.

May Allah guide modernist deviants working against the Muslim Ummah, and if no guidance is written for them, may He destroy them, amin

[abd7861]

I never claimed perfection - I have no illusions - but if I were to choose to live my live in any country today it would be a country with a functioning constitutional democracy - I don't pretend to have all the answers or believe in building castles in the sky. I find it rich when Muslims living in the UK have these complaints - fair enough it is right to be critical (critical citizenship is a must - to criticise the power of the government) but if you're going to condemn political participation in these countries then go - please go back to the Muslim lands.

And your critique of social democracies is very libertarian - this is good but its not ''Islamically ordained''.

People in theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia can be as easily duped - the human condition is the same everywhere - but democracy is the best option out of some frankly unsavoury options. In a liberal constitutional democracy reform and debate can occur - the judiciary is vigilant in trying to curb the excessive power of the executive. What is your alternative?

:salam:

You absolutely have no clue regarding these concepts which were propounded by the 'medieval' fuqaha centuries before your liberal constitutional democracies!

Pray, please read the document outlining the power of the judiciary by Ammerul Mumineen Umar :anhu: . You may be surprised that such a 'medieval (nauthubillah)' person is so advanced that our 'liberal' democracies have just about caught the end of his cloak!

A system that is not ordained by the Shariah will land you in Hell. Allah Ta'ala declares,

4:115 If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that of the believers (The Sahaabah), We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,- what an evil refuge!

My brother, you are totally colonised by the supposed superiority of Western thought and ideology.

:ws:

[AK-1990]

Don't really know where to go with the whole, ''May God curse you because you don't agree with my narrow minded mediaevalism''...But I frankly don't care what you think because Alhamdullilah the Ummah is moving towards democracy inshallah - it is happening already.....

The priorities of the Islamic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Morrocco and Turkey are truly inspiring and their work is an example to the rest of the Ummah - resisting tyranny and now they are trying to build their countries - mashallah!

:salam:
Continue dreaming boy! Democracy will be crushed by the army of Khorasan! This is a System of Kufr and is Taghoot! InshAllah Allah will help his Army to demolish this idol of democracy in the years to come!

[abd7861]

There is great ethical wisdom in the classical tradition - but no practical institutional theory about Statecraft. Read Al Ghazali, Al Farabi, and other political philosophers within classical Islam - they all talk about the virtues and ethics of a good leader and in very general terms talk about how a society should be organized. You will not find the separation of powers or any real equivalent of modern constitutional theory in their works. The works of the past should be built on but not adopted literally - and the verse you cited has no relevance to this discussion.

I'm talking about the institutional make up that is present in the liberal constitutional regime - not the underlying ethical and moral principles which are already present in Islamic thought. The best means to give a form to the Islamic ethic is by adopting the democratic system - there is a greater chance for Islam to flourish under a liberal democracy than there is under personal rule, autocracy, tyranny or any other such rubbish.

I'm not choosing democracy as a religion - merely a system for a country to adopt. I can be a Muslim and a democrat at the same time - there is no contradiction - I don't why this type of hopelessly backward thinking still persists from some rabid illiterate Mullahs who clearly haven't woken up in this century when truly articulate scholars such as Shaykh Yusuf al Qaradawi and others have already settled this matter conclusively. Scholars like Shaykh Qaradawi and others particularly from the Azhari school of thought have written a lot in this regard. A lot of sensible scholars have clearly written well on this matter using the Islamic sources to justify democratic rule - alhamdullilah for the wisdom of these true scholars of Islam not the Mullahs who use religion as a stick to beat others and for their own personal gain....

:salam:

The first statement of yours infers that Rasulullah :saw: did not fulfil his mission in establishing the laws of how an Islamic state should be governed. It also infers that Rasulullah :saw: did not teach the Sahaabah :anhum: about Statecraft. This is in total opposition to the statement of the Sahaabah that Rasulullah :saw: had taught them comprehensively. It also insults the era of the Khulafaa-e-Rashideen and the monumental works of Statecraft that the Fuqahaa penned. If you are unable to understand this then remember Allah Ta'ala states,

10:100......He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.

Your second statement that the aayah I quoted has no relevance to the topic is indeed laughable. Read the tafseer and you might be surprised. However, knowing how colonised you are with the concept of democracy and its supposed wonderfulness for the Ummah I doubt you will understand.

20:47............and peace to all who follow guidance!

:ws:

[Abu Zakir]

:salam:

The first statement of yours infers that Rasulullah :saw: did not fulfil his mission in establishing the laws of how an Islamic state should be governed. It also infers that Rasulullah :saw: did not teach the Sahaabah :anhum: about Statecraft. This is in total opposition to the statement of the Sahaabah that Rasulullah :saw: had taught them comprehensively. [/B]

:ws:


There is no such thing as Islamic State, only Islamic government. The word state should not be used with Islam, because the state is a completely alien thing to Islam. The Khalifs ruled and established Islamic dawla or government, it was not a state, they opened up many lands to Islam with their way.

[Abu Zakir]

The priorities of the Islamic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Morrocco and Turkey are truly inspiring and their work is an example to the rest of the Ummah - resisting tyranny and now they are trying to build their countries - mashallah!


This is foolish, democracy in these lands will bring more pain for the Muslims. Look at America and Europe these Muslim lands lag behind by about 20 years, if in 20 years time they will be where Europe and America are will this be an improvement?

Democracy simply allows the bankers to rule un-hindred, to create their riba, based consumerist fantasy economy which enslaves man and makes him lose his soul.

[abuhajira]

You clearly have no clue about Pakistani society or the enormous street power the Mullahs have - which is why you can be killed for holding certain religious opinions or forced into exile....

:salam:

oh please.. if the "Mullahs" had such street power, then do you think people like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Saleem would be roaming and openly having pub parties?

[Usama2]

:salam:

Unknownentity,

You reveal some telling details about your lack of belief in Islam.

It is good that you are here to discuss these matters with learned brothers and sisters, but do not misunderstand something:

differing political views is NOT the same as what you espouse here- ridiculing fiqh as 'medievalism' and casting doubt and aspersions on Islam as a universal way of life, and such.



When disbelievers mention chronological references, eg. medievalism, going back to the 7th century, backwardness, atavism, etc. and in exchange advocate "democracy", I highlight the origins of democracy and how "modern Western civilization" is actually a manifestation of ancient, pagan Greek and Roman civilizations.

But Muslims should be made fully aware of the origins of democracy as well.


So the original question needs to be answered: what is democracy?
It is NOT some ethereal enigmatic 'way' as advocates espouse or believe. It has an origin and a practice.

Democracy was initiated in ancient pagan Greece around 500 years before the birth of Isa bin Maryam (as), or 1080 yrs before hijrah.
Athens was the primary city of democracy as it was the major city-state of Greece, and Pericles was one of its leading statesmen and philosophers. Plato was also a leading philosopher of democracy.
This is its origin.

So from this, we can examine what Athenian democracy was, who Pericles and Plato were, and how Greek civilization manifested this 'way'.

[mre later :insh:]

[Abu Zakir]

unknownentity Your critiques are valid - but advocating a return to the medieval age is not the solution. By God, we do not need to return to the dim and dark days of tyranny and dictatorship. Alhamdullilah - the Egyptians have learnt this and now are working hard for a just democratic system that is pro-Islam.

It is you who is mis-characterizing it as a return to the medieval. Monarchy was destroyed in Europe during WW2, it is recent not medieval. The way you contrast "Democracy" with "Dictatorship" is a false dialectic, Democracy often functions like a Dictatoship in the sence that it is Centralized Government, with Intense Control of the masses from the centre, the use of social enginerring techniques etc. Changing the party that rules every 4 years does not alter anything.



I only said the people who say that political participation in the parliamentary system here in the UK is religiously forbidden should pack up and leave - not those who have a valid critique of the system.

I say whatever floats your boat, if you want to participate with voting and giving the politicians legitimacy where they claim to represent you the voter for their actions, then go ahead, but do not then blame me for the terrible conditions and loss of liberty that ensues, you voted for them so you are to blame.

As a simple example, lets say 100 people become shipwrecked on an Island that can sustain all of them, they all go off and homestead some land for themselves (private property), soon they are all established and are trading amongst each other, life is ok. But some of them decide they need a government and that they should vote, 25 people disagree and refrain from voting. After the election a leader is chosen who then says all the citizens are to pay taxes...the 25 that did not vote are forced to hand over their property or they will be punished. This is Justice and Freedom? No it is Tyranny, next the government decides that bartering, is not good they need some form of state monopoly on money. Paper money is printed and people are forced to use it for all their trade, then some people are allowed to become banks, they can create money from nothing as well, they loan it out and charge interest on it because the government has given them a license. Everytime the banks create new money, the money that is already in circulation loses its value (inflation), this means it is a hidden tax and the bankers are benefiting from this. And because of the need for interest, money always need to be loaned out, this encourages consumerism, envy, conflict etc and man becomes materialistic indeed the government and the bankers encourage this because if serious religion took hold, they would lose their slave populations and their way of life would cease.

Human Beings are an endangered species we need to be saved from the dominant power system which is threatening the earth and its life support systems...The man who is the khalifah of Allah on earth needs to return and take power.

Personal rule by a King has its own checks and balances, Kings could never conscript people into their armies, when they raised taxes people would rebel, there is a whole social and civil structure behind the King, known as the Aristocracy who keep the King in check. The Aristocracy have obligations towards the people they rule over, it does not mean they abuse or terrorise their people, rather they get involved in their daily lives, child births, deaths, illnesses, mariages..etc. there is a strong link betwenn people, they are not alienated living in huge urban centres where some neighbour can be dead for weeks before anyone knows.

[mh16388]

It is extremely shortsighted nay delusional to cite that due to Islam Pakistan is in sectarian chaos. The last time I checked Pakistan was in the hands of a 'liberal' cabal of pseudo-munaafiqs. If it has changed please enlighten me.


aoa,
excellent observation :thumbsup:

[warea]

I was expecting a definition and analysis of democracy. But it seems like members are attacking or defending some invisible ghost.

[mh16388]

I was expecting a definition and analysis of democracy. But it seems like members are attacking or defending some invisible ghost.

same.
in sha Allah i shall wait for brother usama2 to resume writing on democracy on this thread, as he has stated.

[AbuFatimah]

people talking in this way should be flogged in the streets.
Especially if they are deviant ghamidi-followers as you are.

Shame on you.

lmao

[AbuFatimah]

democracy at work:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jupmX7ddum2CQWgoief7e0AMcLjQ?docId=1b8cf69b3 892451f8bdc9704d7ea6b0d

great civil liberties there

[AbuFatimah]

I have some observations and questions for you unknown entity:

1 would you accept taht the liberal democracies you are praising so much, have been the main obstacle to any sort of development in the islamic world? From propping up dictators to invading nations, drone strikes to having people on your pay role, pillaging resources and meddling whenever it suits you, and before, it was colonisation even. This has all been fascilitated by the very system you are telling us, does wonders for civil rights? Dont you see the paradox there? The fact that they have given rights to their own citzens at the expense of the other 90% of the world makes them oppressors, not free. The exploitation of about 90% of the world is shocking, america has organised many coups of so called democratically elected governments just for some material gain.

2 I agree its one of the best system CURRENTLY PRESENT, because Islam has no real political presence on a state level currently due to the kuffar doing all they can to prevent that from ever happening. Also many muslims are in favour of going through the demoratic takeover only because the kuffar are giving us no other choice but democracy so many see the stark choice of letting secularists rule the country or getting into parliament and ruling by semi islamic political concepts, as the lesser of two evils, its not that they support all that democracy entails.

3 sectarian violence on a large scale is only occurring in a few muslim states, all of which are supposed democracies that have severe american meddling. Why is there less sectarian violence in saudi than there is in pakistan, dispite saudi being further away from democracy and closer to the shariah?

4 violence is inevitable in a system like democracy, tahts why we frequently have race riots and things in britain and teh west. Im a born and bred british muslim so why dont you get out of my country rather than patronising me and kissing the backsides of my fellow countrymen rulers, nothing annoys me more than sellout muslims who worship the west. Democracy allows any ideology flourish so naturally people will clash. Islam means taht proper islam is taught in all schools and educational systems, meaning you wont end up with 101 sects. Notcie how the muslims in so called democratic myanmar just took a beating. In uzbekistan, americas best friend, muslim women are forced to be sterilised, aoudhu billah what kind of world do you want to live in. Your telling me this world is better now americas in charge, compared to when islamic system stretched from spain to indonesia, you'd rather live anywhere in teh world now as opposed to al andalus?

[Abu Zakir]

democracy at work:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jupmX7ddum2CQWgoief7e0AMcLjQ?docId=1b8cf69b3 892451f8bdc9704d7ea6b0d

great civil liberties there

The democratic state needs and feeds terrorism or the other to fight against to empower itself. without the other there would be collapse of democracy...the state creates a violent other to make itself look good and offering security against terror, yet it has created the terror for this reason.

[mubakr]

A paper on defining democracy:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~rdalton/archive/jod07.pdf

Some basic principles would be:

Independent Judiciary
Free and Independent media
Separation of Powers
Free and Fair elections
Universal Suffrage
Minority Rights
Basic Human Rights

Liberal democracy is procedural not prescriptive - this is the confusion in many minds.... mashAllah bruv, enjoyed most of your posts. I was really tired but still stayed awake to quickly glance at some clear points you elucidated. I will definitely read all again. Although i am not educated in politics or social studies i have really admired some of the concepts which underpin western governance. I would love to learn more. I posted a few posts trying to explain in simple pragmatism in another thread how sharia state is not a viable concept and the secular state would be better for Islamic spread i started getting people saying i am deceived by satan or that i am siding with kufr or statements along those lines. It appears there is a recurrent behavioural pattern in this antagonistic secular and democracy hating groupseeing how people have chosen to respond to you. However they are our brothers, i hope they come to see we are merely looking for the most effective, pragmatic and tried and tested model of governance and statehood. Look forward to more interesting posts and debate.
,

[warea]

A paper on defining democracy:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~rdalton/archive/jod07.pdf

Some basic principles would be:

Independent Judiciary
Free and Independent media
Separation of Powers
Free and Fair elections
Universal Suffrage
Minority Rights
Basic Human Rights

Liberal democracy is procedural not prescriptive - this is the confusion in many minds....

Ill read the paper bbut from the points you listed they are barely connected with democracy. Democracy should be defined as a model of governance and not clubbed it with "universal suffrage" or whatever. See how Plato or Aristotle classifies government and in that sense define democracy. I could define shariah government as "good, honest, fair, just,"etc and then anyone would be forced to accept such defintion and hence accept islamic government. But people who notice fallacys would not notice the fallacy in these definitions of democracy too with complete ambigious broad terms like "rights" and "free" .

Does free democracy allow Muslims to practise their shariah laws? What free is it then if they don't? So let those who want western laws migrate to western countires while leave the majority of people to themselves if they want laws other than tht.

[abd7861]

:salam:

In a liberal democracy that you so dearly espouse please inform me as to where Allah :taala:'s Ahkaam fit into this wonderful system of governance?

As a liberal democracy is supposedly based on the majority voting in free and fair elections what happens if the people decide that the hudood, that are incumbent on the Islamic authority to implement, are to be abolished?

Or do you feel that mankind has so morally progressed since the age of Rasulullah :saw: that we now no longer need the hudood???

Will the people be allowed to do this?

Please enlighten us.

:ws:

[amr123]

:salam:

In a liberal democracy that you so dearly espouse please inform me as to where Allah :taala:'s Ahkaam fit into this wonderful system of governance?

As a liberal democracy is supposedly based on the majority voting in free and fair elections what happens if the people decide that the hudood, that are incumbent on the Islamic authority to implement, are to be abolished?

Or do you feel that mankind has so morally progressed since the age of Rasulullah :saw: that we now no longer need the hudood???

Will the people be allowed to do this?

Please enlighten us.

:ws:

:ws:

:thumbsup:

Khilafath is a Fardh Kifaya. There is no doubt about that.

[mh16388]

:salam:

In a liberal democracy that you so dearly espouse please inform me as to where Allah :taala:'s Ahkaam fit into this wonderful system of governance?

As a liberal democracy is supposedly based on the majority voting in free and fair elections what happens if the people decide that the hudood, that are incumbent on the Islamic authority to implement, are to be abolished?

Or do you feel that mankind has so morally progressed since the age of Rasulullah :saw: that we now no longer need the hudood???

Will the people be allowed to do this?

Please enlighten us.

:ws:

excellent post...again.

[AbuFatimah]

A paper on defining democracy:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~rdalton/archive/jod07.pdf

Some basic principles would be:

Independent Judiciary
Free and Independent media
Separation of Powers
Free and Fair elections
Universal Suffrage
Minority Rights
Basic Human Rights

Liberal democracy is procedural not prescriptive - this is the confusion in many minds....

listen bro, its as easy as this, some things that the west preach, are in agreement with islam, dispite not being practiced in the muslim world, such as emphasising on the rights of ethnic minorities (Although these rules are ridiculed and hated by the british public FYI), individual rights, proper pay and working conditions, economical and engineering development, selecting your ruler etc, these principles are good and in agreement with Islam and muslims need to practise this more inshAllah, but these are not exclusive to democracy, so if you want to see more of this, by all means advocate it for muslim lands inshAllah, but dont do it under the banner of secular democracy.

If you agree with secular democracy, you agree that all laws should be voted in by the public, religion has no place in the political establishment, people should have the right to insult islam and Allah and other such things. If you believe this, then congratulations you have committed kufr and your wife may be committing zina, so learn your deen from Islamic sources, believe in it, advocate it, retake your shahada just in case, and leave this westernised nonsense.

1) democracy allows for neo conservatives to rule a country so do you accept taht democracy allows for this to happen dispite the presence of counter political groups who are not receiving popular support, the fact that liberals exist doesnt disprove our point unless your saying that real democracy would prevent neo conservatives from getting into power

2) the kuffar have much to do with everything, hosni mubarak was receiving 1.5billion per year in MILITARY aid to keep the muslim population along with ikhwan under suppression so that was courtesy of your beloved western secular democracy America

3) Are you saying saudi sectarianism is worse than pakistan? Do you have some proof of facts and figures or should I take your word for it and just assume your probabily right and tehrefore I shoudl support secular democracy instead of the political system ordained by Allah SWT?

4) democracy has allowed america to do what it does, democracy is mob rule, it only takes a few zionist owned newspapers to incite the public and the war drum beats will lead nato straight into any conflict, your saying democracy is so damn practical yet you have no answer for the main advocaters of this system who are currently terrorising this planet. I became muslim after visiting arab lands btw and being impressed with how much better their society is compared to british society so tehre goes your assumption out of the window that somehow the muslim lands will shock me into becoming a clean shaven alcoholic strip club attending part time muslim who makes sajda to George Bush and Tony Blair

[AbuFatimah]

I cant believe that with these kind of cretins present in the ummah, you guys feel salafis are most deserved of your attention. Allahu musta'aan

[mh16388]

A paper on defining democracy:

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~rdalton/archive/jod07.pdf

Some basic principles would be:

Independent Judiciary
Free and Independent media
Separation of Powers
Free and Fair elections
Universal Suffrage
Minority Rights
Basic Human Rights

Liberal democracy is procedural not prescriptive - this is the confusion in many minds....

what does free and independent media mean?
free to post caricatures of the Prophet (PBUH)?
free to curse Allah (SWT)?
free to define limits of modesty of female dressing on television?
free to define the content of programmes run on air?

kindly read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/12/child-access-online-porn-sexual-norms?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038) to see how 'independence' and 'freedom' as promulgated by the western system of values completely destroy society

[mh16388]

I cant believe that with these kind of cretins present in the ummah, you guys feel salafis are most deserved of your attention. Allahu musta'aan

come to the thread about dawat e islami and see why these lot and salafis are connected.

[mh16388]

3) Saudi sweeps its rubbish under a rug - do you have any idea how many political prisoners they keep and how many scholars of different schools of thought are dumped in their prisons? They rule with an iron fist squashing any difference of opinion - sectarianism is the inability to tolerate difference not the existence of difference itself.

he was talking about sectarianism not about political prisoners. according to your theory the saudis should be perpetrating a mass ethnic cleansing right now because of their 'iron fist'. they are not. your bias has failed.


it was still evident that non-Muslim in Al Andalus had fewer rights than Muslims.

jews in medina at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) had fewer rights as well. this has always been how laws regarding dhimmis have been understood.


Today - I have the same rights as any other citizen in the UK

mark of your ignorance actually. to state the truth: you do not.



In fact Europe has emulated more about our Islamic ethic with its welfare state, independent judiciary and freedom of worship than the Ummah in general!

what a flawed comparison.
europe is a colelction of countries. ummah is a collection of people.
european doctrines that you are so impressed by are implemented in their constitutions. islamic law is not currently fully implemented in any constitution in any muslim country of the world.
so it is a dual incorrect comparison.

[Abu Zakir]

FAO unknownentity



unknownentity Your critiques are valid - but advocating a return to the medieval age is not the solution. By God, we do not need to return to the dim and dark days of tyranny and dictatorship. Alhamdullilah - the Egyptians have learnt this and now are working hard for a just democratic system that is pro-Islam.

It is you who is mis-characterizing it as a return to the medieval. Monarchy was destroyed in Europe during WW2, it is recent not medieval. The way you contrast "Democracy" with "Dictatorship" is a false dialectic, Democracy often functions like a Dictatoship in the sence that it is Centralized Government, with Intense Control of the masses from the centre, the use of social enginerring techniques etc. Changing the party that rules every 4 years does not alter anything.



I only said the people who say that political participation in the parliamentary system here in the UK is religiously forbidden should pack up and leave - not those who have a valid critique of the system.

I say whatever floats your boat, if you want to participate with voting and giving the politicians legitimacy where they claim to represent you the voter for their actions, then go ahead, but do not then blame me for the terrible conditions and loss of liberty that ensues, you voted for them so you are to blame.

As a simple example, lets say 100 people become shipwrecked on an Island that can sustain all of them, they all go off and homestead some land for themselves (private property), soon they are all established and are trading amongst each other, life is ok. But some of them decide they need a government and that they should vote, 25 people disagree and refrain from voting. After the election a leader is chosen who then says all the citizens are to pay taxes...the 25 that did not vote are forced to hand over their property or they will be punished. This is Justice and Freedom? No it is Tyranny, next the government decides that bartering, is not good they need some form of state monopoly on money. Paper money is printed and people are forced to use it for all their trade, then some people are allowed to become banks, they can create money from nothing as well, they loan it out and charge interest on it because the government has given them a license. Everytime the banks create new money, the money that is already in circulation loses its value (inflation), this means it is a hidden tax and the bankers are benefiting from this. And because of the need for interest, money always need to be loaned out, this encourages consumerism, envy, conflict etc and man becomes materialistic indeed the government and the bankers encourage this because if serious religion took hold, they would lose their slave populations and their way of life would cease.

Human Beings are an endangered species we need to be saved from the dominant power system which is threatening the earth and its life support systems...The man who is the khalifah of Allah on earth needs to return and take power.

Personal rule by a King has its own checks and balances, Kings could never conscript people into their armies, when they raised taxes people would rebel, there is a whole social and civil structure behind the King, known as the Aristocracy who keep the King in check. The Aristocracy have obligations towards the people they rule over, it does not mean they abuse or terrorise their people, rather they get involved in their daily lives, child births, deaths, illnesses, mariages..etc. there is a strong link betwenn people, they are not alienated living in huge urban centres where some neighbour can be dead for weeks before anyone knows.

[AbuFatimah]

what does free and independent media mean?
free to post caricatures of the Prophet (PBUH)?
free to curse Allah (SWT)?
free to define limits of modesty of female dressing on television?
free to define the content of programmes run on air?

kindly read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/12/child-access-online-porn-sexual-norms?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038) to see how 'independence' and 'freedom' as promulgated by the western system of values completely destroy society

free and independent means one rich person (aka rupert murdoch) is free to brainwash billions of people via his media empire, influencing who they vote for and all kinds of other things, and teh media has no right to stop him. Thats free media. Welcome to democracy

[Saj]

The fruits of democracy:

From BBC News:

Egypt's supreme court has caused outrage by calling for the dissolution of the lower house of parliament and for fresh elections.

It has ruled last year's parliamentary election was unconstitutional, with one third of the seats "illegitimate".

The Muslim Brotherhood's candidate in this weekend's presidential election run-off, Mohamed Mursi, said the decision "must be respected".

However, other Brotherhood figures condemned the ruling.

"I respect the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court in that I respect the institutions of the state and the principle of separation of powers," Mr Mursi told Egyptian TV, according to AFP news agency.

But the ruling has prompted fears that the military wants to increase its power, including among some other figures from the Brotherhood.

Another senior Muslim Brotherhood politician, Essam Al-Arian, said the ruling on parliament would send Egypt into a "dark tunnel".

The Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party won 46% of the vote in the three-month poll and Mr Arian warned that the decision would leave the incoming president without a parliament or a constitution.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis

Jon Leyne

BBC News, Cairo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supreme constitutional court had been expected to say that some parts of the parliamentary election were illegitimate but the chief judge has gone much further by saying there will have to be a complete re-run.

That is bound to infuriate the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest party in parliament.

There are also reports that the ruling military council may take back the power to legislate and even, in effect, to write the constitution.

That is still unconfirmed, but if it did happen, the opposition would see it as close to a military coup.

A compromise is still possible. But it does look ominously as if Egypt is headed, at the very least, to a new political gridlock.

Islamist Abdul Moneim Aboul Fotouh, who took part in the first round of the presidential vote in May, said that dissolving parliament amounted to a "complete coup".

The Salafist Al-Nur party, which has the second biggest representation in parliament, said the ruling showed "a complete disregard for the free will of voters".

Parliament speaker Saad El Katatny was equally scathing, arguing that no-one had the authority to dissolve parliament.

'Historic ruling'

In a separate ruling, the supreme court also decided that former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq could continue to run for president in the June 16-17 presidential run-off election, rejecting as unconstitutional a law that would have barred him from standing.

After an emergency meeting held after the two court rulings, the ruling military council (Scaf) confirmed that the election would go ahead as planned, and urged Egyptians to vote.

Ahmed Shafiq was the last prime minister under Hosni Mubarak
Under the Political Exclusion Law, passed by parliament, senior officials from former President Hosni Mubarak's regime were banned from standing for office.

Mr Shafiq is standing against Mr Mursi in a tight run-off. He told supporters that the court had made a "historic ruling and verdict that meant there was no way for anyone to do particular laws for particular people."

While his supporters were delighted he could stand, protesters reacted angrily outside the court building, which was guarded by rows of police in riot gear and surrounded by barbed wire.

Demonstrators shouted slogans and held posters demanding that Mr Shafiq be disqualified.

'Against the rules'

The court had been considering the validity of last year's parliamentary election, because some of the seats were contested on a proportional list system, with others on the first-past-the-post system.

It decided that the election law had allowed parties to compete for seats reserved for independent candidates.

The head of the supreme court Farouk Soltan told Reuters: "The ruling regarding parliament includes the dissolution of the lower house of parliament in its entirety because the law upon which the elections were held is contrary to rules of the constitution."

Many of the seats ruled unconstitutional were won by the Muslim Brotherhood.

But if parliament is dissolved, there will be uproar, the BBC's Jon Leyne says, because the Muslim Brotherhood has a majority of seats and will fear a worse performance in a re-run parliamentary vote.

Since the fall of Mubarak, Egypt's military has promised to hand power to an elected president by the start of July, but with no constitution and now the prospect of no parliament to write one, the new president is unlikely have his powers defined by the time he comes into office.

[mh16388]

Its as simple as this people:

There are much better Islamic scholars out there who have given democracy an Islamic basis:

Muhammad Hashim Kamali
Shaykh Yusuf al Qaradawi
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Khaled Abou El Fadl
Tariq Ramadan
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
Fetullah Gulen
Muhammad Asad
Muhammad Iqbal
Al Azhar just issued a document endorsing democratic rule in the wake of the Arab Spring
Rachid Al Ghannouchi
The Muslim Brotherhood
The Islamic political parties competing in Indonesia and Malaysia
Louay M Safi
Jawdat Said

And many many more....

Let us look at different Islamic political parties and movements:

Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt)
Al Wasat (Egypt)
Al Nour Party (Egypt)
Enahda (Tunisia)
Freedom and Development (Morocco)
AKP Party (Turkey)
Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (Malaysia)
United Malays National Organisation (Malaysia)
Prosperous Justice Party (Malaysia)
National Awakening Party (Malaysia)
Muhammadiyah (Indonesia)
Islam Liberal Network (Indonesia)
Gulen Movement (Turkey)

These are just a few examples that I have cited who all regardless of their different ideological convictions (some groups are more liberal, others more traditional - there is great diversity of thought in these movements) participate in the democratic system and uphold constitutional rule. I have never spoken about ''secularism'' which is distinct from liberalism or democracy. All these groups work very hard on the grassroots level to bring great benefit alhamdullilah...and they do so by working within a democratic system but using Islamic sources to derive their moral and ethical basis for political decisions.

I have only really seen groups like HT, the Saudi Salafis talk vehemently against democracy - and these are very marginal groups which no one takes seriously anyway, particularly in the case of the latter who use their ''scholarship'' to give religious legitimacy to a tyrannical ruling class...

Most scholars, intellectuals, thinkers and Islamic groups across the Ummah participate in a democratic system - no one is talking about French style secularism.

And if wanting a sensible democratic regime that is pro-Islam makes me a ''modernist'' then alhamdullilah I'm a ''modernist''. Apart from rabid mullahs who speaks out against democracy as an idea?

Also I do not see democracy prescribing to Muslims any ethical norms - we derive our ethical norms from our faith but democracy is the political procedure we utilise to realise these norms - if you cannot distinguish between procedure and prescription then that's not my problem....


your argument lost air from the start when you quoted these people:
Muhammad Hashim Kamali
Shaykh Yusuf al Qaradawi (majority hold the opinion his fiqh is incorrect. majority is hujjah)
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (he has lost respect and credibility in many people's eyes after what he said about dante)
Khaled Abou El Fadl
Tariq Ramadan (modernist and not a scholar)
Javed Ahmed Ghamidi (lol)
Fetullah Gulen (modernist and not a scholar)
Muhammad Asad
Muhammad Iqbal (not a scholar)
Al Azhar just issued a document endorsing democratic rule in the wake of the Arab Spring (modernists)
Rachid Al Ghannouchi (modernist and not a scholar)
The Muslim Brotherhood (not scholars)
The Islamic political parties competing in Indonesia and Malaysia (not hujjah, neither are scholars)
Louay M Safi
Jawdat Said

when you dont even know how to differnetiate between scholars and knowledgeable non-scholars then there is nothing to argue with you. peace.

[Saj]

This is an abuse of the democratic ideal - its the equivalent of an Islamophobe presenting the Taliban as the real image of Islam....

Alhamdullilah though the political parties in Egypt like the Ikhwan will stand for democratic rule and Islamic ethics. We need more groups like Ikhwan - alhamdullilah...Ikhwani thinking is very sensible mashallah....

The Islamic parties won the majority of parliamentary seats by a large margin last year. Where has it got them? Suddenly now there are shouts of a third of seats were illegitimate.

So this scenario will be replayed again and again, until there parliament is full of secularists and apostates or there is armed struggle to make Islam supreme in the land.

What happened to democracy when Islamists won in Algeria? What happened to Hamas when it won the vote?

Most of these Islamist parties turn secular or present extremely watered down Islam in the end.

En-Nahda in Tunisia have blatatnly turned around and said they are not going to rule by Shariah, despite riding the Shariah bandwagon into power.

[AK-1990]

Okay keep your ''majority'' - most of the sensible people working in the Ummah don't believe in this fictitious ''majority'' you speak of when clearly most of these groups working have the blessings of scholars in their respective country - and yes I don't take political guidance from Mullahs - thank God for human reason....


Proud to be a ''modernist'' inshallah, Ikhwan and all these other movements will bring great benefit to their countries. What ''scholars'' do you follow? Sub-continental mullahs who use the power of the street? Already the popularity of these groups is spreading and inshallah in many Muslim countries the example of the AKP and Erdogan has provided a way of combining Islamic ethics with political governance. Inshallah, Erdogan will reform Ataturk's secular constitutionalism with a new one that is pro-Islam and pro-democracy: http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=382439#.T9pJv7UeMtE

Thank God for these people mashallah - the reformers of this Ummah - the ones who are actually working while the ''scholars'' rest in their medieval slumber...

OMG!!! What kind of sentences are you writing do you know that? Some of them are kufr.. You are comparing the heirs of Ambiya A.S with these secular so called Islamic reformists ????

[mubakr]

Okay keep your ''majority'' - most of the sensible people working in the Ummah don't believe in this fictitious ''majority'' you speak of when clearly most of these groups working have the blessings of scholars in their respective country - and yes I don't take political guidance from Mullahs - thank God for human reason....


Proud to be a ''modernist'' inshallah, Ikhwan and all these other movements will bring great benefit to their countries. What ''scholars'' do you follow? Sub-continental mullahs who use the power of the street? Already the popularity of these groups is spreading and inshallah in many Muslim countries the example of the AKP and Erdogan has provided a way of combining Islamic ethics with political governance. Inshallah, Erdogan will reform Ataturk's secular constitutionalism with a new one that is pro-Islam and pro-democracy: http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=382439#.T9pJv7UeMtE

Thank God for these people mashallah - the reformers of this Ummah - the ones who are actually working while the ''scholars'' rest in their medieval slumber...

On a more different challenge, how exactly will you be able to keep Mullah's out of authoritarianism if you plan not to make the state secular? How will minority rights and other ethnic rights be protected on a purely democratic basis? As an example how would Ahmadis feel free in pakistan or how would shias feel free in SAudia? It is important to understand that until people acknowledge we are actually living in end times the concept of non-muslims as dhimmis would be advocated in a Muslim non-secular state. If a particular group acknowledges democracy but continues to see another group as heretics and blasphemers no democracy would safeguard the interests of these other citizens as parliament would almost always vote with the voice of people on the streets. Thats why turkey is a good example and laicism is an important concept side by side with democracy. It advantages Islam as I have said in other threads by allowing free and genuine adoption of ISlamic belief and practices rather than the state shoving it into our throats. Why I argue this because democracy is an easier concept to be integrated and adopted in Islam.

[mubakr]

OMG!!! What kind of sentences are you writing do you know that? Some of them are kufr.. You are comparing the heirs of Ambiya A.S with these secular so called Islamic reformists ???? You guys are amsusing. I thought muslims were free of demagogic responses and would have good thoughts about people's intention. You can see clearly he has put 'scholars' in inverted. Yet you start changing what he has wrote and talk about heir's of Anbiya a.s and how he is saying kufr things. You clearly know that him putting scholars in inverted means he does not view today's cholars and mullahs apart from his own to be genuinely inspired by true ISlamic ideals, tradition and beliefs. Should we start lessons in english so that you guys dont keep on accusing this opinionated individual about how anti-islamic he is and how is promoting kufr?

[mh16388]

You guys are amsusing. I thought muslims were free of demagogic responses and would have good thoughts about people's intention. You can see clearly he has put 'scholars' in inverted. Yet you start changing what he has wrote and talk about heir's of Anbiya a.s and how he is saying kufr things. You clearly know that him putting scholars in inverted means he does not view today's cholars and mullahs apart from his own to be genuinely inspired by true ISlamic ideals, tradition and beliefs. Should we start lessons in english so that you guys dont keep on accusing this opinionated individual about how anti-islamic he is and how is promoting kufr?

he meant the ulema (the heir of anbiya (AS))when he wrote 'scholars'. ak-1990 is correct.

[mh16388]

Most of the scenarios you mention about Hamas and FIS in Algeria for example are all aberrations of the democratic ideal - when the democratic system isn't allowed to run its natural course or when tyrants rear their heads to disrupt the process - it is nothing inherent about the idea itself....
poor apologist argument. everything is wrong except the democratic 'ideal'.
not to mention the ill-state of countries who do supposedly have this democratic 'ideal'.

[abd7861]

:salam:

There is nothing left to say but this as Allah :taala: has made His Kitaab clear without compromise.

5:44.......And whoever does not judge by what Allah hath revealed, they are Unbelievers.

5: 49. And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.

9:32 Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

19:75 Say: As for him who is in error, the Beneficent will verily prolong his span of life until, when they behold that which they were promised, whether it be punishment (in the world), or Hour (of Doom), they will know who is worse in position and who is weaker as an army.

:ws:

[Saj]

Most of the scenarios you mention about Hamas and FIS in Algeria for example are all aberrations of the democratic ideal - when the democratic system isn't allowed to run its natural course or when tyrants rear their heads to disrupt the process - it is nothing inherent about the idea itself....

So what's the point in faffing on about a system that will not work in the Muslim lands because most Muslims in these lands are under the impression that if they vote for an Islamic party they will get what they want i.e Islam but whenever this seems even a little bit of a possibility it is snatched away and we get "democratic aberration" one after the other. As I said these aberrations will only really stop with armed struggle. Look at Libya - the government turned its back on Shariah, so groups on the ground are rising up physically to get it and this scenario seems likely to be repeated across the Arab world. May Allah help the Muslims through these trials.

[Abu Zakir]

Thank you for telling others what I meant - please be free at any time if I need you tell others what I exactly think....

Of course I didn't meant the ulema in general - mubakr is right in his description. I meant the illiterate Mullahs who are at the forefront at keeping our minds closed....


As touched upon by others in this thread, the word democracy 'rule by the people' or 'the people are sovereign' means many different things to different people. The word when it is used by the mass media is supposed to be given meaning to by individuals themselves, only they associate pleasant feelings with the word. It is pure PR and Propaganda.

The story or myth of Democracy is that we all vote for our leaders, who serve us when in power and each politician represents the wills of thousands of his constituents or voters or tax payers. Clearly this is impossible.

The other myth is that we can change our rulers every 4 years...again an impossibility because a bad bunch can remain in power, in addition each political party increases the power of the state, it does not matter which party is in power they all increase the power of the state and they erode individual freedoms. And in every election millions of people vote for the losing party or they do not vote at all, it can be argued that the majority do not subscribe to the democratic process.

Democratic myth 3 is that they have set up a near as perfect as they can be a Centralized Absolute State Power that has separation of powers and each branch keeps the other in check. In fact the State simply increases it power and can within a blink of an eye shift its mode into "Terror Mode", arguing that there is a state of emergency and Democracy is under threat, they bring in laws that inform the tax payers that they can be arrested and locked up without trial and they can be tortured.

Myth number 4, that citizens have rights....they of course have some rights given to them by the State, but these can be revoked at any time the State sees fit...no citizens are asked to directly vote if they want to pay taxes or not, or if they want to bail out bankers or not. Citizens lose homes, jobs, livelihoods in their millions and they still supposedly 'choose' to help keep billionaire bankers in business!!!

Myth number 5, there is no God, whether God is real or not, is a private affair, nothing to do with governments and making laws, laws are made by humans...they can make charging Interest legal and halal, they can make homosexual marriage legal and halal. Try disagreeing with this and you will be shown how tolerant they are. And a more subtle point is that if laws are made by man, why should the rest of the citizens obey? If a bunch of 500 politicians vote in some building why do those laws become binding on millions of others???!!! The answer of course is that they are not binding and there is no obligation to obey them...this is very close to nihilism and when it permeates a society it creates social break down and tyranny. It is conceivable and probable that the state will even invent Terrorism or at the very least increase and exaggerate the threat so that it can empower itself and increase its control of the population.

Why on earth would anyone want to adopt this dead and decaying form of government? It has nothing but destruction in it and Muslims should flee from it. They should choose an Amir from amongst themselves, pledge allegiance to him, he should organize Zakaat collections, Muslims should select Gold and Silver currency to pay their zakaat in. This will empower the Muslims, by-pass the secular state without war or terror and it will establish the Shariah laws of trade and commerce for Muslims.

[AbuFatimah]

you've skipped all of my points so i take it your unable to answer them. All you listed me was a list of a few scholars who arent really scholars. I can make a bigger list of scholars who dont approvae of democracy although that doesnt make a difference

[Aseatic]

A "republic" in its most primitive form, is basically a council of elders that represent the most important families or tribes of the city. If one family gains power over the others, historically a monarchy develops with an aristocrat class. But if the families are balanced in power, you get a primitive republic.

An Afghan Jirga, is a primitive republic government, with the chiefs forming a "senate" in the ancient sense. It's very common when several tribes want to come together.

[mubakr]

democracy 'rule by the people' or 'the people are sovereign' is pure PR and Propaganda..

No its a clear cut concept with no amiguities in it. All societies which believes in government need people to govern.
It is a simple concept with no inherent anti-islamic value in it. Let people choose who they want their communities, society or nation to be governed by.

The story or myth of Democracy is that we all vote for our leaders, who serve us when in power and each politician represents the wills of thousands of his constituents or voters or tax payers. Clearly this is impossible.

No it is possilbe. Happens all the time in most countries.


The other myth is that we can change our rulers every 4 years...

Yes we can change our ruler every 4 years through democratic elections



Democratic myth 3 the State simply increases it power and can within a blink of an eye shift its mode into "Terror Mode", arguing that there is a state of emergency and Democracy is under threat, they bring in laws that inform the tax payers that they can be arrested and locked up without trial and they can be tortured.

hat is abuse of democracy. The government should not suppress the will of the people.


Myth number 4, no citizens are asked to directly vote if they want to pay taxes or not,

Most countries with organic economies not dependent on petrowealth have democratically elected to institute taxation for the purpose of welfare and socially compassionate societies. Thats a great Islamic-democratic value.


there is no God, whether God is real or not, is a private affair, nothing to do with governments and making laws, laws are made by humans...

DEmocracy in kufr lands will reflect kufr ideals. Democracy in Muslim lands will reflect Muslim and Islamic ideals/values.


they can make charging Interest legal and halal
they can make homosexual marriage legal and halal.

Democratic societies can always ardently refuse to approve homosexuality or interest transactions as a social norm. Many states in US and all democratic muslims societies I know have homosexual marriages illegal. PEople can similarly vote to have interest banking phased out and only Islamic banking into the scene. DEmocracy can do that, if the people want. Allah will not change a condition of people until they change what is in themselves. If a deep abhorrence is built up in the Muslim masses for interest banking then it wouldnt be long before politicians will have to listen to the people's will.

[Abu Zakir]

No its a clear cut concept with no amiguities in it. All societies which believes in government need people to govern.
It is a simple concept with no inherent anti-islamic value in it. Let people choose who they want their communities, society or nation to be governed by.


No it is possilbe. Happens all the time in most countries.

How can one man represent the will, wishes and ideas of thousands of others? It is impossible. You ask 10 people what is democracy and each one will give you a different answer.




Yes we can change our ruler every 4 years through democratic elections



hat is abuse of democracy. The government should not suppress the will of the people.

Maybe you should demonstrate how ticking a box on a ballot paper is 'the will of the people', I vote for X and 2 people vote for Y, my vote is cancelled. Even if we accept that my will can be represented by another, it is cancelled.




Most countries with organic economies not dependent on petrowealth have democratically elected to institute taxation for the purpose of welfare and socially compassionate societies. Thats a great Islamic-democratic value.

This is your opinion it is not based on any evidence, if you force people to give away their property (taxation) it is usually called theft.




DEmocracy in kufr lands will reflect kufr ideals. Democracy in Muslim lands will reflect Muslim and Islamic ideals/values.

No it will not.




Democratic societies can always ardently refuse to approve homosexuality or interest transactions as a social norm. Many states in US and all democratic muslims societies I know have homosexual marriages illegal. PEople can similarly vote to have interest banking phased out and only Islamic banking into the scene. DEmocracy can do that, if the people want. Allah will not change a condition of people until they change what is in themselves. If a deep abhorrence is built up in the Muslim masses for interest banking then it wouldnt be long before politicians will have to listen to the people's will.

Please, this is wishful thinking, you really think the politicians represent the ordinary people? No they do not, money power rules and if anyone even dared to control money power they would be removed or killed, this is the Reality.

[Abu Zakir]

democracy is not to be confused with secularism. Democracy and secularism are two different concepts and liberalism is an entirely different idea.


You have non secular democracies? Liberalism is a very confused word, it used to mean what libertarianism now means, and social democrats who usually want a big role for the state to play are now known as liberals. Neo liberals argued for smaller state interventions in the market place, yet they still empowered the military industrial complex, so their liberalism was hypocritical. Democracy allows money power to dominate all societies and this is important, it makes the State Absolute, citizens and individuals have very little power against the Leviathan State. The Political Class in Democratic societies serve money power, knowingly or not.

The Ikhwani Muslimeen are a disgrace...attempting to remould Islam to be modern, using Islamic terms to describe un-Islamic institutions and actions, like Islamic Banks or Islamic Credit Cards. Real Muslims must wake up and see that the kafirun are trying to control Muslims through parties like the Ikhwani Muslimmen who will create a land of kufr covered up with a thin veil of Islamic words.

[warea]

Mukabr,

Tell me why you think Plato errored in his understanding of democracy:



Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In*democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. Diversity is supreme. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so chose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary*desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out ofinstinct*or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes


When looking at these Democratic countries of west, this is exactly what you ssee. Desires and directionlessness.


My personal take of looking at ideal Islamic government is to look at what constitues a ideal Muslim. The Quran teaches the best example is in the Prophet :saw: therefore an ideal Islamic government is something tthat carries tthe attributes of the Prophet :saw: and that is what muslims should aim for as ideal. But with western style democracy it makes the government totally apathetic to religion and that surely would never be how the Prophet :saw: as the head of state ruled Muslims.

[Abu Zakir]

Modern Democracy was born during the French Revolution. It was argued that Kings were Tyrannical and societies needed to have Fraternity Equality and Liberty. The King and his Queen were murdered by the Revolutionary mob, then in the name of liberty Equality and Fraternity they made laws allowing the state to murder millions of enemies of the people. This is built into Democracy it comes out from time to time even now. The relationship between the rule and ruler was not equal at all after the revolution, the State increased its own power...Kings never had the power to force his subjects to fight his wars, the Democratic State by contrast could force millions to die and murder for it. The State also wants total obedience and loyalty from its citizens...if you criticise the state they usually ask you to leave if you do not like (this implies the state is a natural part of the land and no one has the right to not like it).

[Usama2]

There is a continual 'FAITH' and idealization of "THE PEOPLE" which advocates of democracy espouse. And yet, this myopic FAITH runs contrary to the reality of human experiences, as well as in contrast to Allah's Revelation.

[translation of the Holy Quran]

(6:116) "If you obey the majority of those who live on earth, they will lead you away from Allah's path. They only follow idle fancies, indulging in conjecture.

(25:44) Do you think that most of them hear or understand? For they are merely like cattle; nay, even worse than them."

For most of the prophets of Allah (as), the majority of people were led astray like cattle. The earthly, material forces alligned against the believers have always been more powerful and more numerous than those forces which the believers could muster- it was only by the Victory of Allah that believers gained glory.

How would democracy have applied throughout the ages in these epic matters?
How would the prophets (as) have faired in such democracies?

When Musa (as) returned from the Mount to find the people worshipping the golden calf idol, would would 'democracy' have offered?
If democracy was applied for Salih (as) when he was challenged by the arrogant party of Thamud iwth their wealth and power and resources and backers, how would democracy have settled the matter?

So how is 'democracy' NOW feasible?

Are the believers TRULY equal to the atheists and secularists, where they engage in continual political battles over laws and regulations and measuring of right and wrong, as democracy promises? And are the Muslims and believers, long disadvantaged by decades of being banned and ostracized and disenfranchised, really supposed to spend years struggling over every minute matter?

And what about "the people"- what do they know? After decades of struggle, the gay/homo movement in the West has succeeded in turning the majority of people in support of gay rights, even by misinforming them and misleading them about 'born this way'.


It is a misguided faith, this notion of "the people" in democracy.

[abd7861]

:salam:

Rachid Ghannouchi (Leader of 'Islamic democracy' - an oxymoron if there ever was one) declares that Tunisia will be Shariah free and will not be enshrined in the Constitution. Please refer to,

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/319518/20120326/tunisia-ennahda-constitution.htm

Also our 'Shaikh-ul-Islam' a.k.a Shaikh-ul-Jahaalah Rachid Ghannouchi declares the following,

"......The promise made by Al-Nahda’s leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, that the party had no intention of banning alcohol and bikinis....." (http://www.sismec.org/2012/03/23/booze-bikinis-and-birth-control/)

Rasulullah :saw: had prophesised that there will be people from my Ummah who will legalise riba, zina, khamr and ma'aazif (musical instruments). These Chief Priests of democracy are the realisation of this prophecy.

One wonders how Islamic ethics can be implemented by such supposedly 'taqwa' orientated people????

I ask you to honestly tell me how our beloved Rasulullah :saw: and His Sahaabah :anhum: whose blood dyed the earth red in implementing Allah :taala:'s ahkaam would react to such jahaliyyah statements?????

:ws:

[mubakr]

You make some great points. However you have to understand few things. Governance today of modern nation states most of the time deals with issues which have little major spiritual/religious significance. They mostly deal with material goals. I have talked about this in other threads repeatedly. Healthcare, employment, welfare, taxation, infrastracture, education, agriculture, import/export laws e.t.c.. It does occassionally deal with issues sensitive to the religious conscience but most of the time it deals with day to day running of making a country better from the material point of view.


(6:116) "If you obey the majority of those who live on earth, they will lead you away from Allah's path. They only follow idle fancies, indulging in conjecture.

(25:44) Do you think that most of them hear or understand? For they are merely like cattle; nay, even worse than them."

I would think that logically the verses would apply to spiritual and religious realm. If we follow the majority of people in spiritual matters we will be misguided. Alternatively I can also argue that the verse is not refering to Muslim communities. Literally non-muslims outweight Muslims by a factor of >4 to 1. If we are to follow them in matters of religion, culture, values e.t.c. we would be mislead and misguided. If I as a minority in a non-muslim land follow the value system of the majority in matters of religion - like pub visiting, irreligiousity, entertainment/celebrity obsession I would be misguided.


And what about "the people"- what do they know? After decades of struggle, the gay/homo movement in the West has succeeded in turning the majority of people in support of gay rights, even by misinforming them and misleading them about 'born this way'.

Well democracy did not turn people into homo/gay supporters. That is ideals and liberalism of the westerners reflecting in their democratic process. The western people have some ideals without doubt which are totally anti-islamic and this reflects at times in the democratic process when it comes to few matters which have significance for the religious conscious. Democracy in muslim lands will follow muslim ideals and values. Now if you say that majority of Muslims have never or will never understand ISlam then we as a community are doomed. Our value system strongly discourages homosexuality than any other value system. It would be unnatural for our elected leaders to start talking about things which will make them immensely unpopular. [/QUOTE]

[mubakr]

Mukabr,

Tell me why you think Plato errored in his understanding of democracy:When looking at these Democratic countries of west, this is exactly what you ssee. Desires and directionlessness.

But with western style democracy it makes the government totally apathetic to religion and that surely would never be how the Prophet :saw: as the head of state ruled Muslims.

Boss, government's role is not to oppose or spread religion. Governments role is to govern the land and its sophisticated ministries. The Ideal government is one inspired by Muslim values - hardwork, honesty, integrity, dedication e.t.c and other qualities the Quran and the prophet exemplify. Governmenal departments and functions in western countries are mostly religious indifferent because the subjects they deal with are mostly religious indifferent. Read my reply to Usama. In a Muslim majority country departments, policies, topics and law which do have a religious bearing should ofcourse incoprorate the ideals of the Islamic value system.

I havent read about Plato's thesis and his regimes in much detail. But I would say that desires and directionless in society is due to irreligiousity. Plato's democratic man sounds like very irreligious and hippie type person to me.

[Abu Zakir]

You make some great points. However you have to understand few things. Governance today of modern nation states most of the time deals with issues which have little major spiritual/religious significance. They mostly deal with material goals. I have talked about this in other threads repeatedly. Healthcare, employment, welfare, taxation, infrastracture, education, agriculture, import/export laws e.t.c.. It does occassionally deal with issues sensitive to the religious conscience but most of the time it deals with day to day running of making a country better from the material point of view.

Herein lies your problem, Islam is not just a 'spiritual' religion it governs the whole of human life, including trade, commerce and government. If you reduce Islam to just spirituality no Islam is left. And if you remove Islam from the sphere of government, trade, commerce etc. you get great corruption and disequilibrium.

I wonder if you realize the level of corruption????

You have a handful of families earning billions and trillions of dollars while billions of people work for them or struggle to survive. These families get bail outs from Democratic governments, only a fool will think that the people actually means the masses, it means the billionaire bankers. An analysis of Democracy in America will reveal to you who pays for the election campaigns and who benefits once the election is over...hint it is the billionaires every time.

[Anybody]

Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem

Assalam-Alaikum Brother Unknownentity:

May Allah guide us, and keep us on the Straight Path.

Brother, in my Constitutional Law Class, I remember all we really discussed was, "Who is the Ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?" And let me tell you that what I took away from that class: All the three branches of government vie for power over the other and also work to undermine the other when possible. Also, Brother, America is not a "democracy," as people mistakenly refer to the political government. It is a democratic republic, not a democracy. People in the West just use the word "democracy" because it sounds "better" to the masses, and most of the brainpower don't really care to inform the masses of the fact that higher echelons of society have always worked to limit the power of the masses because they fear their illiterate mindsets. My high school history teacher used to say, "Masses are asses." I thought it was really funny at the time, but history proves this: For example, the French Revolution occurred in the name of "liberty, equality, and fraternity," presumably freeing the people from the tyranny of unjust rulers. However, the government that came into power as a result of the French Revolution proved more tyrannical than the French monarchy and part of its reign is even today known as "The Reign of Terror." However, that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is that Shariah State provides the many freedoms that people of our time don't even realize they have lost, perhaps one of the greatest of which is the freedom to be offended. For example, the often fanatical defense of the First Amendment means that our children and adults alike are exposed to pornographic material that is not deemed obscene until the material meets the impossibly difficult standard of "patently offensive hard core sexual conduct." What this means is that many materials dealing with sex, including pornographic magazines, books, and movies, simply do not qualify as legally obscene even though it offends the honor that Allah granted mankind in being able to strive for a purified life free from sinful temptations.

For some reason, I keep remembering the Quran as to why separation of powers does not work in reality even if a person's idealism prompts him to believe that it does:

"If there were, in the heavens
And the earth, other gods
Besides Allah, there would
Have been confusion in both!
But glory to Allah,
The Lord of the Throne:
(High is He) above
What they attribute to Him!"
(Al-Qur’an 21:22.)

"No son did Allah beget,
Nor is there any god
Along with Him: (if there were
Many gods), behold, each god
Would have taken away
What he had created,
And some would have
Lorded it over others!
Glory to Allah! (He is free)
From the (sort of) things
They attribute to Him!"
(Al-Qur’an 23:91.)

To be honest, Brother, the "democracy," as you perceive it, is the author of confusion, not guidance for mankind. However, the Shariah was always meant to act as a guidance to mankind. Indeed, I cannot help but wonder Who can create a better system of governance in the Heavens than Allah, and He Himself says that He is One and has no partners, not in His decision-making, not in His Will. Brother, the Caliphate mimics the truth that a just ruler can engender a "better," as defined in the Shariah, society in one year than a so-called "democracy" can in a two-hundred and thirty-five years of self-governance. We don't have to look to the history books for this, only to look at the society in which we live: From a juvenile law attorney who later changed careers to handle delinquency proceedings, I had heard of the case on which she worked, that of a 17-year old young boy coming home after being incarcerated and being so angry that he placed the buttocks of his own baby in boiling water due to being angry at his own inability to buy Christmas gifts. What is wrong with this picture? Will you tell me, Brother? In my opinion, a seventeen-year old had no business having per-marital sex in the first place and then coming home to abuse his child. In a Shariah State, children over the age of puberty are responsible for their actions, but United States deems children under the age of 18 as "minor" and they are rarely prosecuted as adults? Or what about the girl who was sold by her father for twenty dollars and abused by different men over the years until the police located and rescued her? Brother, what happens to these men, even when they get convicted under domestic trafficking laws, United States lets these predators out on parole to re-offend, that is, to recommit other heinous sexual offenses against minor children. You see, Brother, Islam strives for a clean society, a society which cannot flourish without a Shariah State. You see, Brother, even today, Muslims are the second largest population in the world, but we are ineffective and disorganized because we have the requisite quantity but not the quality to lead the Ummah. Brother, "quality" does not flourish, in fact it suffocates, under the kufr ideologies of materialism and secularism underlying the so-called "democracies" of the Western world. Why do you think Brother that Prophet :saw: warned us in the hadith in this manner: "Nations will call each other, as people make invitations to a meal, to make a concerted attack on you. Someone asked: ‘Will this happen because of our being small in number?’ God’s Messenger answered: ‘Rather, you will then be great in number, but as powerless as woodchips or straw carried in a flood. God will remove fear of you from the hearts of your enemies and implant in you fear of death and love of the world.’" Brother, why "fear of death"? Why "love of the world"? Because secularism and materialism teaches that there is (a) no God, which means no Heaven and Hell and (b) accumulation of quadfecta of power, wealth, fame, sexual hedonism, etc. should be realized now because of reason (a).

Furthermore, the First Amendment requires a separation of the church and the state. However, no such doctrine has or was ever articulated during the time of Prophet Muhammad :saw: or the Rightly Guided Caliphs (may Allah bless them), because Islam was the state and the state was Islam. This is why jihad was promulgated on the principles of defending the ummah against attacks and/or germinating Islam in hitherto pagan or polytheistic nations for the sake of Allah.

Brother, we cannot take Allah out of the picture, as democracy presumes to do, even if we wanted to (which hopefully we don't) because Allah promises us in the Quran (2:157), "'Truly, to Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return.'" Moreover, Brother, I make a distinction between democratic principles, which Islam encourages, versus "democracy" which has never been the intention of Allah, Prophet Muhammad :saw:, or the Rightly Guided Caliphs (may Allah bless them and bless us with their ability in decision-making an judgments) to allow to succeed as such systems necessarily always work to undermine the laws of God since God is considered a nonentity and His language considered superfluous to the success of a modern nation-state as defined and governed by paramount state interest. For example, during the Clinton administration, despite the fact that many people would accrue major debt, the administration encouraged the people to fulfill the quintessential American dream of owning a "home with a white picket fence" so that they could keep the masses happy enough to vote them another into another term. In fact, a Bloomberg Businessweek article says, "A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It's clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html)." This is because the values of materialism and secularism are the underpinnings of modern "democracy" and to try to separate between them and make distinctions between them would be to try to--say--take the rare earths, a class of 17 elements in its historical context, that are so similar to each other that scientists at one time had a very hard time separating them out due to their similar chemical properties, made harder by their low concentrations in minerals and difficult-to-isolate characteristic. Brother, if something is difficult in theory, chances are that it is likely practically infeasible. A democracy conversant with Islam is hard to imagine because "democracy" is against the promotion of religion as any part of state policy. Conversely, Islam deals with the reality of human nature and societies and attainable values and is inseparable with the unchanging laws of Allah.

Also, a hadith clearly explains: "'Prophethood (meaning himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up wherever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive [The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust] rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood.' Then Hudhaifah said, 'The Prophet stopped speaking'" (As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5).

Brother, this hadith, interpreted in its right context, clearly refers to the end of the Ottoman state and the contemporary regimes that rule the world, both Muslim and Non-Muslim. Brother, I do not doubt that you have good intentions in promoting democracy as a system of governance. However, the above are at least some of the reasons that I disagree with you.

No doubt, now that I read over what Brother Abu Zakir and other Brothers and Sisters have kindly and patiently written, I realize that some of what I have said is a repeat of what they have already taken the time to post. However, Allah knows best and perhaps at least something of what I say here may still benefit.

If I have said anything that is good and true, it is from Allah, and anything other than that is my own mistake.

[mubakr]

Herein lies your problem, Islam is not just a 'spiritual' religion it governs the whole of human life, including trade, commerce and government. If you reduce Islam to just spirituality no Islam is left. And if you remove Islam from the sphere of government, trade, commerce etc. you get great corruption and disequilibrium.

WEll we differ here. I dont think Islam role in the 21st century is to direct what pharmaceuticals the state should subsidize or whether more nursing homes should be built in a a certain region. I feel that should be left to experts in health in their country. Thats why its not surprising that many non-muslims also held political and civic roles in previous Islamic historical states.

Islam's role is to inspire righteousness and correct conduct in people who make decisions of government but not that a person should have spent his life in Islamic Ilm studies like Fiqh/Hadith/Quran/Theology. WE are not removing Islam from sphere of government because Islams role is to turn people to Allah and his worship not to decide which roads need repair, which hospitals need upgrade, what industry should we expand in a region for more employment, what immigration policies we should have, how much tax should we levy in 2012, which universities should receive how much funds. These are all material aspects of life for which aiming success and best communal benefit is not wrong. Islam guides people who make these decisions in their character, personality, in their behaviour and manners and in their ethics. Islam doesnot aim to make those decisions for them because these are religious indifferent and worldly aims and ambitions.

[Abu Zakir]

WEll we differ here. I dont think Islam role in the 21st century is to direct what pharmaceuticals the state should subsidize or whether more nursing homes should be built in a a certain region. I feel that should be left to experts in health in their country.

Your attempts to reform Islam will fail, those who follow you will meet abject failure.

So you are a socialist? Collectivist see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

You are saying that the majority or the collective have a greater right than the individual. The collective can take wealth away from the individual and give it to 'pharmaceuticals'. And again this is the problem with your view, nowhere in the Quran or Sunnah will you find this, therefore if someone big and powerful comes and takes property away from someone by force...it is theft, whether you give it to pharma or charity...it is not your job to decide this for someone. Islam gives the individual full choice in whether they want to pay Zakaat or not, whether they want to join a jihad or not, a ruler cannot conscript an army.


You should read the book: Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Monarchy-Natural/dp/0765808684)
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Just so you understand what it is you are admiring and what its detractors find problematic with it. Look around you, after 300 years of democracy there is little economic equality and greater disparity between the rulers and the ruled. One is not free, everything is regulated, they allow sexual freedom just so people do not become rebellious, it is a control technique used by the money power to keep people quiet.



Democracy: The God That Failed is a 2001 book by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, containing a series of thirteen essays on the subject of democracy and concluding with the belief that democracy is the primary cause of the decivilization allegedly sweeping the world since World War I, and that it must be delegitimized. He characterizes democracy as "publicly owned government," which he compares to monarchy—"privately owned government"—to conclude that the latter is preferable; however, Hoppe aims to show that both monarchy and democracy are deficient systems compared to his preferred structure to advance civilization—what he calls the natural order, a system free of both taxation and coercive monopoly in which jurisdictions freely compete for adherents. The title of the work is an allusion to The God That Failed, a 1949 work in which six former communist (or former communist sympathizer) authors describe their experience of and disillusion with communism.

In addition, Hoppe deconstructs the classical liberal belief in the possibility of limited government and calls for an alignment of anti-statist conservatism and libertarianism as natural allies with common goals. He defends the proper role of the production of defense as undertaken by insurance companies on a free market, and describes the emergence of private law among competing insurers.

[mubakr]

Your attempts to reform Islam will fail, those who follow you will meet abject failure.

No one is trying to reform Islam. We are all trying to understand Islam's position on governance and wether modern modes of government democracy/constitutionalism/secularism which have worked well in many countries can work in Muslim lands as well. And its not suprising that it is working when you think of countries like unknownentity mentioned Turkey, Indonesia, Eygpt, Malaysia who are pursuing such things.



Just so you understand what it is you are admiring and what its detractors find problematic with it. Look around you, after 300 years of democracy there is little economic equality and greater disparity between the rulers and the ruled. One is not free, everything is regulated, they allow sexual freedom just so people do not become rebellious, it is a control technique used by the money power to keep people quiet.

Democracy is still evolving. When democracy and genuine religiousness combines as it will happen in many Muslim nations this century tremendous success will ensue. Because the people will be religious and they will make correct, God fearing, God pleasing decisions and elect people who are God fearing. Saying that democracy will fail in Muslim nations is saying that Muslims are incapable of seeing and finding out which people are honest, hardworking, ethical just, moral people who vote and stand for correct policies. I think you are reading too many conspiratorial opinions on democracy. Democracy in my mind is a simple concept. People in a society/community decide what they want they want their government to do. Lets not complicate affairs. In a Muslim land we would expect democracy to express itself in values that reflect, promote or are not antagonistic to Islamic ethics.

[warea]

Boss, government's role is not to oppose or spread religion. Governments role is to govern the land and its sophisticated ministries. The Ideal government is one inspired by Muslim values - hardwork, honesty, integrity, dedication e.t.c and other qualities the Quran and the prophet exemplify. Governmenal departments and functions in western countries are mostly religious indifferent because the subjects they deal with are mostly religious indifferent. Read my reply to Usama. In a Muslim majority country departments, policies, topics and law which do have a religious bearing should ofcourse incoprorate the ideals of the Islamic value system.

I havent read about Plato's thesis and his regimes in much detail. But I would say that desires and directionless in society is due to irreligiousity. Plato's democratic man sounds like very irreligious and hippie type person to me.

And this is the fallacy of the conception. Who told you government role is just to govern a ministry ? The purppse of life in Islam is to worship God. Therefore, an ideal Islamic government would be one that governs people in a way that supports this purpose of life. An Islamic ruler is but a Muslim who has greater power, I.e power of governance. So all Islamic duties present in a common man would be present also in a person who has power to govern and he as to carry out his islamic duties with the power he is entrusted with or he is sinful for he has done nothing to support islam and oppose non-islam despite having the capability to do so.

What western ddemocracy has done is make religion irrelevent and powerless. They have seperated the governance of scoiety from having any connection with relgioin therefore negated religion from having any role in public life which is nothing but the foundations of atheistic liberalism that turned west into the irreligious state they ttoday are. By making the govenrment and leaders of a community apathetic to religion and solely intrested in material progress they have inturn made the community also materialists and purpose of life into satisfying material goods. So its impossible that such a government can in any sense be "Islamic ideal".

[mubakr]

And this is the fallacy of the conception. Who told you government role is just to govern a ministry ? The purppse of life in Islam is to worship God. Therefore, an ideal Islamic government would be one that governs people in a way that supports this purpose of life. An Islamic ruler is but a Muslim who has greater power, I.e power of governance. So all Islamic duties present in a common man would be present also in a person who has power to govern and he as to carry out his islamic duties with the power he is entrusted with or he is sinful for he has done nothing to support islam and oppose non-islam despite having the capability to do so.

What western ddemocracy has done is make religion irrelevent and powerless. They have seperated the governance of scoiety from having any connection with relgioin therefore negated religion from having any role in public life which is nothing but the foundations of atheistic liberalism that turned west into the irreligious state they ttoday are. By making the govenrment and leaders of a community apathetic to religion and solely intrested in material progress they have inturn made the community also materialists and purpose of life into satisfying material goods. So its impossible that such a government can in any sense be "Islamic ideal".

I think we should just agree to disagree because we are all going in circles. In my opinion Islamic values mould government but governments role is not to force on people religion. I am a firm believer in the non-compulsion of religious belief and practice. I am all for government supporting, strengthening, investing in and promoting Ulema and their independent views. In that way my government is not atheistic. I dont know how to put it but I see government as a department dealing mostly with secular activities or worldly stuff. I cant circle my head around the arguments of most people here because they keep on affiliating government as the most important organ and defender of Islamic tradition whereas I think other branches of civil life are more appropriate. The Ulema, activist groups, charitable institutions and other such civic groups. I think it has become apparent that most of us supporting democracy/secularism feel confident that the Ulema can save a countries faith whereas the opposing group thinks they cannot and government has to take the role. I see the Ulema as the inheritors of the prophetic mission and have full confidence in them. I dont see politicians, parliamentarians and ministers as inheriting the mission and job of the prophet. I think that if there is a weak Ulema in a country then we are doomed. The religious scholars are more important to a society than politicians but politics and religious scholarship are different things. IF I were to sit and write a thousand secular activities and processes government deals with I will probably still get you guys saying how important religion is to government processes because you lot all just bypass the fact that government predominantly deals with the secular field of the world. Most secularist modernist Muslims know that religion is the most significant thing in life but they just think that the two activities dont need mixing. Government/politics deal with secular life. Ulema, media, religious philosophers should expound on religion.

[warea]

I think we should just agree to disagree because we are all going in circles. In my opinion Islamic values mould government but governments role is not to force on people religion. I am a firm believer in the non-compulsion of religious belief and practice. I am all for government supporting, strengthening, investing in and promoting Ulema and their independent views. In that way my government is not atheistic. I dont know how to put it but I see government as a department dealing mostly with secular activities or worldly stuff. I cant circle my head around the arguments of most people here because they keep on affiliating government as the most important organ and defender of Islamic tradition whereas I think other branches of civil life are more appropriate. The Ulema, activist groups, charitable institutions and other such civic groups. I think it has become apparent that most of us supporting democracy/secularism feel confident that the Ulema can save a countries faith whereas the opposing group thinks they cannot and government has to take the role. I see the Ulema as the inheritors of the prophetic mission and have full confidence in them. I dont see politicians, parliamentarians and ministers as inheriting the mission and job of the prophet. I think that if there is a weak Ulema in a country then we are doomed. The religious scholars are more important to a society than politicians but politics and religious scholarship are different things. IF I were to sit and write a thousand secular activities and processes government deals with I will probably still get you guys saying how important religion is to government processes because you lot all just bypass the fact that government predominantly deals with the secular field of the world. Most secularist modernist Muslims know that religion is the most significant thing in life but they just think that the two activities dont need mixing. Government/politics deal with secular life. Ulema, media, religious philosophers should expound on religion.

Your dilemma doesn't apply for I wasn't calling for any switching of roles. Ulema would be ulema always and do their job. But a head of state to be ideal also has to be "islamic". A government to be ideal also has to be islamic and hence carry the attributes of a ideal muslim. They have to do Islamic duties within the power and authority they have. To ask him to keep his religion at home is kufr. To deny religion any power in public life is liberalism.

Like I said just compare the system of government you espouse to be a individual Muslim and then ask yourself whether such is a state of a good Muslim. Is a good muslim who only cares about material pprogress of his community ? Is a good muslim who does not provide religious service to his community ? Is a good Muslim who reject religion from having any influence in his decision ? Is a good Muslims who allows a non-muslim to direct the direction on which his community moves? Is a good Muslim who does nothing to stop something unislamic even though he hs the power too ?

So reality is that what is being exported is under the names of "free" and "rights" is nothing but atheism or apatheism. That's why its important to discuss the details rather then the outward name and slogan.

You seem to concerned more with seperation of power. But islam has never called for power being among people not entitled to it. So yes scientific opinion will espoused by those who are experts and medicine by those who are experts and religion by those who are experts and leadership among those who have ideal qualities of a leader. But to say that religion which is a a necessary component and worldview of muslim should be kept out of everything except when he is in the mosque is nonsense and backdoor atheism.

[janaveronikazahra]

salam alikum,
what I think the best ruler would be islamic one. I am not afraid what about atheists and other religions becasue good mulim leadership includes how to deal in god way with non muslims. But muslims in muslim state would be give all rights coming from islam, and that is important, without making mischief with non-muslims. The biggest problem in world nowadays is that atheistic liberals whant to impose their so called ideas of freedom on all -
On the other hand there should be not compulsion- means pushing non muslims to islam if they dont want, but give them frame wher also non muslims can enjoy their activities /whatever/ under condition they will not make mischief among muslims.

[warea]

Even the idea that, in democracy if Muslims were majority pious it would reflect in government, is also not really accurate because when the liberals are in minority they campaign under the slogan "oppression of minorities". Tomorow theyll ask us to give "human rights" to a gay idolator to have equal rights to lead the Muslim country. So any such muslim democracy would have to appease the liberal policies inorder to get blessings of the western democracy because the whole system of democracy is based on worldview and ethics of the godless, desires led, directionless liberals.. So at the end of the day the western world would not stop until your are exactly like them with some superficial difference. Democracy wouldn't be ideal democracy until it fits the criteria of atheist liberals and moves the direction of atheist liberals. Democracy is just a tool to get Muslims to walk the road that would lead to being like them and open the doors for liberals and capitalists to get into positions of power and exert greater influence over muslims.

I surely do not want Muslims to end up like the evangelical or Anglican community in America or Britain.

[janaveronikazahra]

I agree they will never stop, because may be their ideas are not about freedom and happiness for all people but world dominance, greed and living on acount of others. then it is difficult, world should expose the real morives behind liberalism

[mubakr]

Tomorow theyll ask us to give "human rights" to a gay idolator to have equal rights to lead the Muslim country. So any such muslim democracy would have to appease the liberal policies inorder to get blessings of the western democracy because the whole system of democracy is based on worldview and ethics of the godless, desires led, directionless liberals.. I surely do not want Muslims to end up like the evangelical or Anglican community in America or Britain.

Warea bro, you talk as if we want to import wholesale all cultures and practices of the west. We are just taking a few simple ideas of administering a country and these ideas will obviously modify to suit Islamic society. We dont need to modify Islam to suit these concepts but you can modify the concepts to suit authentic Islam. Why are people so edgy like an atom bomb has exploded if someone says maybe Muslims of a nation can decide what leaders and policies they want rather than leaving it to an absolutist monarchy or a sharia oligarchy


Democracy wouldn't be ideal democracy until it fits the criteria of atheist liberals and moves the direction of atheist liberals.

Thats a very paranoid view of democracy which is grossly inaccurate.

[Abu Zakir]

I think you are reading too many conspiratorial opinions on democracy. Democracy in my mind is a simple concept. People in a society/community decide what they want they want their government to do. Lets not complicate affairs. In a Muslim land we would expect democracy to express itself in values that reflect, promote or are not antagonistic to Islamic ethics.

Democracy uses the idea of a big mass of people as the rulers. A big mass of people are not rulers, get 100 people in a room and ask them to decide on a matter and to vote on it, you will probably get 100 different opinions...Democracy supposedly breaks these opinions down to a group, but again groups cannot decide...it is just a technique which gives money power real power. If you get a mass of people going into populations of millions how is it possible to get their opinions? Democracy has failed everywhere...it has had wars and continues to create war and conflict...This is not conspiracy it is fact. The real rulers use the excuse of Democracy to do what they want, and the masses are so powerless that no one can challenge the state....I can guarantee to you that the majority of people do not want to bail out criminal billionaire bankers...yet the governments did it...why? Because the will of the people does not count and they are powerless.

Edward Bernays said people like him allow democracy to function because they create and shape public opinion through the techniques of Public Relations.

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent'.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Surah Tawba 9:24

Say "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people."

[Abu Zakir]

Warea bro, you talk as if we want to import wholesale all cultures and practices of the west. We are just taking a few simple ideas of administering a country and these ideas will obviously modify to suit Islamic society.

Who is "we"? How will it be decided by this "we" what is to be allowed and what is not? Why should the rest of the population agree to what this 'we' have decided? How are the "we" such experts? How much control will this "we" have over the population. Is it not better to just leave people to govern themselves, with a King or Khalif who simply rules like people have ruled for thousands of years? How is a Structuralist, Centralized, Modern, Democratic and Secularist State an improvement on this?

[Abu Zakir]

I agree they will never stop, because may be their ideas are not about freedom and happiness for all people but world dominance, greed and living on acount of others. then it is difficult, world should expose the real morives behind liberalism


This is very accurate. There are 2 ways a man can live in this world. Either you work using your own talents as given to you by Allah :taala:, or you get others to work for you while you confiscate that wealth from them. The Democratic West is full of parasites, those who want others to work while they take the lions share of the wealth. They do this through primarily riba and high taxation. Billions are collected and given to friends...and these people pretend that they have earned this wealth, it is nothing but robbery and control and Democracy allows this to continue, it could be argued it is the perfect control system of slavery.

[liger05]

I live in the UK and voted once when I was 18. I didn't vote after that as I soon realised what a joke it was and the system is simply there to fool the masses into believing they have choice and a say. Even now they are lucky if 50% turnout to vote as the majority don't believe voting makes a difference.

As for the so called Islamic parties in the Arab world calling for democracy. They are not Islamic. They use Islamic slogans when it suits them but have no desire to rule by what Allah has revealed. They are no different to the secular parties but at least they are honest and don't hide behind Islam.

Democracy is supposed to be a system where man can legislate. If that's the case how can anyone say this is sunnah? Man can legislate and make riba halal or homosexuality halal, adultery halal and more. That is not the way of the believers.

Inshallah it won't be long before the masses in the Arab world realise that they are being fooled and will support those who don't take part in elections and instead work towards establishing the khilafah.

[Abu Zakir]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:





I live in the UK and voted once when I was 18. I didn't vote after that as I soon realised what a joke it was and the system is simply there to fool the masses into believing they have choice and a say. Even now they are lucky if 50% turnout to vote as the majority don't believe voting makes a difference.

As for the so called Islamic parties in the Arab world calling for democracy. They are not Islamic. They use Islamic slogans when it suits them but have no desire to rule by what Allah has revealed. They are no different to the secular parties but at least they are honest and don't hide behind Islam.

Democracy is supposed to be a system where man can legislate. If that's the case how can anyone say this is sunnah? Man can legislate and make riba halal or homosexuality halal, adultery halal and more. That is not the way of the believers.

Inshallah it won't be long before the masses in the Arab world realise that they are being fooled and will support those who don't take part in elections and instead work towards establishing the khilafah.

[Maripat]

Can any one do the favour of summarizing the thread for those poor souls who have not managed to allocate time for this very relevant thread?

[Abu Zakir]

Can any one do the favour of summarizing the thread for those poor souls who have not managed to allocate time for this very relevant thread?

Pro

1) Democracy is great, not perfect but better than any other form of government.
2) Democracy gives freedom and prevent dictatorships
3) Democratic governments preserve the freedom of individuals because of the separation of powers which keeps the government in check.
4) We are moderns and we must all accept that this modern world works best under democracy.

Con

1) Democracy is the worst form of government, it allows money power to dominate.
2) Voting does not actually give freedom to individuals, it is a confidence trick.
3) The separation of powers does not prevent Democratic governments from kidnapping, torture and terrorism.
4) The French Revolution where the modern democratic state originates from had built within it the seeds of Terror and genocide...the Revolutionaries made new laws giving them permission to murder hundreds of thousands of people who ere called 'the enemies of the people'. This seed exists in all democracies and can be implemented without warning in a blink of an eye. Democracies are failures...they have created a powerless people without any voice making the state all powerful in comparison and whoever controls the state from behind the scenes controls the wealth and the people. See Edward Bernays on wikipedia.

[Abu Zakir]

I think this should be included in this thread:

“What then is the doctrine that has to be used to persuade people that the move from monarchy to republic was evolutionary and inevitable, and did not really represent a move from personal rule to inhuman systems government? What is necessary to make people conform to democratic government when it has already proved the instrument of genocidal and total war across the whole world? How do we keep people from noticing that money devalues in their pockets and that a decreasing number, now already reduced to hundreds, hold the greater part of all the world’s wealth? The philosophy goes under different names, and a host of books have been written propagating it, many by influential in-back members of the U.S. Administration, and many by financiers themselves. This iceberg of thought heading for the Titanic of liberal society, in that small portion forced to appear above the surface, goes by the name of post-modernism and presentism, and has an operative policing of the masses called Political Correctness. As Professor Jonathan Clark says, ‘A de-historicized mental universe must also be an atheistic one [. . .] The self is not born free in the sense of timeless. Personal identity is established largely by history, by the persistence within an individual of a set of experiences and learned ways of reacting. To lose one’s memory is not emancipation but a serious mental disorder, for without memory we cannot function as ourselves. If a society loses its history it has the same effect on a larger scale: [. . .] that society could not have only a disembodied existence. It would have lost all those many things which made it itself.’”

Clark, J.C.D.
Our Shadowed Present: Modernism, Postmodernism and History. London: Atlantic Books, 2003


It has taken a world banking crisis of historical proportions in 2008 and the almost total collapse of the international banking system to bring the iniquities and the inequities of the usurious financial system to the immediate attention of the 99.9% of the population who had hitherto been content to remain dormant, indifferent or blissfully ignorant of the nature of the system and the political realities of the money power (referred to as the Sect by Joseph Proudhon).


Ibn Khaldun:
Asabiyya, normally ‘kinship’ is here used to mark as distinctive the bond, the life and death unifying bond of abrotherhood without blood ties [the translator] calls it esprit de corps, but it is much more than that, for it has in it also a moral evaluation as in the term Futuwwa, chivalry or nobility of character. Asabiyya unites men to find the power to act and transform and command. If its motor power is high, its brotherhood is raised higher. If the binding factor (religio - to bind together) is there, that is Divine religion, it is, that being its highest possibility, assured a triumph.

Islam can triumph if we read Ibn Kaldun, men and women need to unite under Islam and to adopt Futuwwa or nobility of character.

[Maripat]

Pro

1) Democracy is great, not perfect but better than any other form of government.
2) Democracy gives freedom and prevent dictatorships
3) Democratic governments preserve the freedom of individuals because of the separation of powers which keeps the government in check.
4) We are moderns and we must all accept that this modern world works best under democracy.

Con

1) Democracy is the worst form of government, it allows money power to dominate.
2) Voting does not actually give freedom to individuals, it is a confidence trick.
3) The separation of powers does not prevent Democratic governments from kidnapping, torture and terrorism.
4) The French Revolution where the modern democratic state originates from had built within it the seeds of Terror and genocide...the Revolutionaries made new laws giving them permission to murder hundreds of thousands of people who ere called 'the enemies of the people'. This seed exists in all democracies and can be implemented without warning in a blink of an eye. Democracies are failures...they have created a powerless people without any voice making the state all powerful in comparison and whoever controls the state from behind the scenes controls the wealth and the people. See Edward Bernays on wikipedia.
:jazak: akhi. Great summary.

Though SF borrows heavily but yours truly suspects that it has got its own view point.

[Abu Zakir]

Deleted post.

[Usama2]

:mad:
Why should anyone give two spits downwind to read Nial Ferguson?
Are you advocating his views here on a Muslim forum?
Or are you suggesting he's a demon with a voice?
Why reference such diabolical scum? Why not reference what Shaytan says about 'austerity' and worldly affairs?

I feel angry after just reading his name here ......:mad:

[mh16388]

ok ive deleted the links.
abu zakir unquote me. i didnt know about his views on islam.

[mubakr]

Is it not better to just leave 'people to govern themselves', with a King or Khalif who simply rules like people have ruled for thousands of years?

Who simply rules like how he (the king) feels best like ruling you mean? And then he should select his successor too shouldnt he?

Perhaps you would reply he will rule using the Quran/hadith and Ulema.

WEll a whole community can also do the same unless you believe that most Muslims dont believe in Quran/hadith and Ulema.

Why do you think that an individual conscience/reason/ideology is better than a mass majorities'. Why would a single Muslim ideas be better than a whole communities? Representative government should represent the beliefs of the people. The Rashidun caliphate was a representative government where the majority of muslims were happy with the caliph's and their circle of administrators.

No muslim society has exact ideas opinions on a vast array of subject. Instead of giving preference to one person's view why shouldnt multiple muslims think reason out and decide/vote on issues which they collectively think suits them best.

[Abu Zakir]

Look at history, when Kings ruled there may well have been tyrants and dictators but they did not have absolute power, their power was naturally limited.

1) In wars the King could not force his population to join his army, so wars were small scale and usually only combatants got involved not the civillian population.

2) The King could not and did not manipulate currency to such a level that he could control the whole population.

3) The idea of the National Debt, Paper Currencies and Income Tax are all 'Democratic' policies. So on behalf of individuals the government takes out a debt it then taxes the population to pay interest on this debt. No King had this power or permission. In short the whole population of millions of people are all paying interest to some money lender.....just imagine how much money this person makes and whether they will ever need to do any real work again. And all the problems that this creates where money is taken away by force and given to others by Democratic governments. Bankers also manufacture and create wars so they can setup their debt based Democratic system in other countries.




Who simply rules like how he (the king) feels best like ruling you mean? And then he should select his successor too shouldnt he?

Perhaps you would reply he will rule using the Quran/hadith and Ulema.

WEll a whole community can also do the same unless you believe that most Muslims dont believe in Quran/hadith and Ulema.

Why do you think that an individual conscience/reason/ideology is better than a mass majorities'. Why would a single Muslim ideas be better than a whole communities? Representative government should represent the beliefs of the people. The Rashidun caliphate was a representative government where the majority of muslims were happy with the caliph's and their circle of administrators.

No muslim society has exact ideas opinions on a vast array of subject. Instead of giving preference to one person's view why shouldnt multiple muslims think reason out and decide/vote on issues which they collectively think suits them best.

[abd7861]

Who simply rules like how he (the king) feels best like ruling you mean? And then he should select his successor too shouldnt he?

Perhaps you would reply he will rule using the Quran/hadith and Ulema.

WEll a whole community can also do the same unless you believe that most Muslims dont believe in Quran/hadith and Ulema.

Why do you think that an individual conscience/reason/ideology is better than a mass majorities'. Why would a single Muslim ideas be better than a whole communities? Representative government should represent the beliefs of the people. The Rashidun caliphate was a representative government where the majority of muslims were happy with the caliph's and their circle of administrators.
No muslim society has exact ideas opinions on a vast array of subject. Instead of giving preference to one person's view why shouldnt multiple muslims think reason out and decide/vote on issues which they collectively think suits them best.

:salam:

I am unsure as to what Historical account you have been consulting as your statement above is factually incorrect.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr :anhu: was given Bayah after the discussion by the leaders of the Muhajiroon and Ansaar in the Saqifah of Banu Sa'ida. Here Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) quoted a Hadith of Rasulullah :saw: which the Ansar accepted and they unconditionally accepted him as Khalifah. No elections and no consultation with the public = nothing remotely related to democracy!

Hadhrat Umar :anhu: was appointed by Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). This time there was no discussion whatsoever. A Khalifah was literally 'forced' onto the people whether they were happy or not. Again this equals = nothing related to democracy.

Hadhrat Uthman :anhu: was made Khalifah after Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)had appointed a Shura of 7 persons from whom the khalifah should be appointed. Remember this fact very carefully that only one of those seven could be appointed as Khalifah. Again I do not see the public having a choice in this. What if they were not happy with the chocie of seven? What if they wanted 10? What if they wanted a different seven? Following this appointment Hadhrat Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf :anhu: consulted with the Ahlul Madinah and arrived at HIS decision. Please note that even though the means were present to consult the other regions of the Islamic dawlah they were not consulted. Their job was to simply pledge bay'ah.

Hadhrat Ali :anhu:'s appointment as Khalifah was agin made by the senior sahaabah present in Madinah. However, the events surrounding his appointment was full of trouble due to the fitnah that had engulfed the Ummah due to the murder of Hadhrat Uthman (radhiallahu anhu).

In the Qur'aan Allah Ta'ala states,

3:159......and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

Note that Allah Ta'ala has left the decision solely for the Ameer which at the time was Rasulullah :saw:. He :taala: does not state the plural pronoun 'azamtum (when you all have decided)' it is 'azamta (when YOU have decided).' I cannot see representation here also as the Ameer has the right to go against all the wishes of the consultation as the final decision is his. This also does not sound very democratic does it???

:ws:

[mh16388]

:salam:

I am unsure as to what Historical account you have been consulting as your statement above is factually incorrect.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr :anhu: was given Bayah after the discussion by the leaders of the Muhajiroon and Ansaar in the Saqifah of Banu Sa'ida. Here Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) quoted a Hadith of Rasulullah :saw: which the Ansar accepted and they unconditionally accepted him as Khalifah. No elections and no consultation with the public = nothing remotely related to democracy!

Hadhrat Umar :anhu: was appointed by Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). This time there was no discussion whatsoever. A Khalifah was literally 'forced' onto the people whether they were happy or not. Again this equals = nothing related to democracy.

Hadhrat Uthman :anhu: was made Khalifah after Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)had appointed a Shura of 7 persons from whom the khalifah should be appointed. Remember this fact very carefully that only one of those seven could be appointed as Khalifah. Again I do not see the public having a choice in this. What if they were not happy with the chocie of seven? What if they wanted 10? What if they wanted a different seven? Following this appointment Hadhrat Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf :anhu: consulted with the Ahlul Madinah and arrived at HIS decision. Please note that even though the means were present to consult the other regions of the Islamic dawlah they were not consulted. Their job was to simply pledge bay'ah.

Hadhrat Ali :anhu:'s appointment as Khalifah was agin made by the senior sahaabah present in Madinah. However, the events surrounding his appointment was full of trouble due to the fitnah that had engulfed the Ummah due to the murder of Hadhrat Uthman (radhiallahu anhu).

In the Qur'aan Allah Ta'ala states,

3:159......and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

Note that Allah Ta'ala has left the decision solely for the Ameer which at the time was Rasulullah :saw:. He :taala: does not state the plural pronoun 'azamtum (when you all have decided)' it is 'azamta (when YOU have decided).' I cannot see representation here also as the Ameer has the right to go against all the wishes of the consultation as the final decision is his. This also does not sound very democratic does it???

:ws:

aoa,
jazak Allah khair. always wanted to get these facts clarified.

[abd7861]

aoa,
jazak Allah khair. always wanted to get these facts clarified.

:salam:

Brother, the tremendous malaise affecting this Ummah is that we are trying to achieve success in this world without the Deen and the Sunnah of Rasulullah :saw: and his Sahaabah :anhum:. Due to this our state has never been more wretched.

People on this thread have commented on the supposed 'advancement' of Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.. The power of all of these countries combined are unable to reclaim for the Ummah what is rightfully its. They lie impotent, subservient. However, when a 'mullah' was a leading power in this Ummah (Sultan Salahuddin) one can see the glitter and strength of this Ummah.

Anyway minds that have been nurtured with Westernism and its supposed superior governance will never appreciate the beauty of the 'medieval' Islam and will only see 'unsavoury' aspects as mentioned previously in this thread.

May Allah Ta'ala reward you for your blog. I have read it and it is very well done.

:ws:

[mh16388]

May Allah Ta'ala reward you for your blog. I have read it and it is very well done.


aoa,
thank you. please pray i can keep it going without losing the real purpose of life.

[Usama2]

It seems like mubakr see's a tree and wants to call it a forest. 'Democracy' is a specific system. And in its practical application as espoused by the Taghut powers of the West- UN, IMF, Ngos, White House, etc- it is designed to empower secularism and economic liberalism, if not social and political liberalism (the British way).

It is myopic to attempt to cherry pick aspects of Islam in order to justify and legitimize democracy which for all intents and purposes amount to accepting legitimacy of kufr.

Yes, 'shura' is consultation and the Prophet (saaw) practiced shura in numerous matters. However, there is specific fiqh regarding it which does NOT include legislative power, rather it offers opinions. It is NOT a license to empower a "parliement", a political body designed to legislate when only Allah is the Legislator.

Yes, there was a council/committee/body (ahlil hall wal aqd) which argued and elected after deliberation a khalifah, however this does NOT legitimize popular majoritarian elections with disbelievers and proven hypocrites as candidates, debating, challenging the very essence of the Islamic state.

Accountability? Islam has it.
Rule of Law? Islam has it.
Justice? Islam has it.

[abd7861]

It seems like mubakr see's a tree and wants to call it a forest. 'Democracy' is a specific system. And in its practical application as espoused by the Taghut powers of the West- UN, IMF, Ngos, White House, etc- it is designed to empower secularism and economic liberalism, if not social and political liberalism (the British way).

It is myopic to attempt to cherry pick aspects of Islam in order to justify and legitimize democracy which for all intents and purposes amount to accepting legitimacy of kufr.

Yes, 'shura' is consultation and the Prophet (saaw) practiced shura in numerous matters. However, there is specific fiqh regarding it which does NOT include legislative power, rather it offers opinions. It is NOT a license to empower a "parliement", a political body designed to legislate when only Allah is the Legislator.

Yes, there was a council/committee/body (ahlil hall wal aqd) which argued and elected after deliberation a khalifah, however this does NOT legitimize popular majoritarian elections with disbelievers and proven hypocrites as candidates, debating, challenging the very essence of the Islamic state.

Accountability? Islam has it.
Rule of Law? Islam has it.
Justice? Islam has it.

:salam:

100% in agreement with the above.

This is the issue here Muslims looking for success in all other ways except the one clearly delineated by Islam.

May Allah Ta'ala increase you in ma'rifah.

:ws:

[mubakr]

:salam:

I am unsure as to what Historical account you have been consulting as your statement above is factually incorrect.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr :anhu: was given Bayah after the discussion by the leaders of the Muhajiroon and Ansaar in the Saqifah of Banu Sa'ida. Here Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) quoted a Hadith of Rasulullah :saw: which the Ansar accepted and they unconditionally accepted him as Khalifah. No elections and no consultation with the public = nothing remotely related to democracy!

Hadhrat Umar :anhu: was appointed by Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). This time there was no discussion whatsoever. A Khalifah was literally 'forced' onto the people whether they were happy or not. Again this equals = nothing related to democracy.

Hadhrat Uthman :anhu: was made Khalifah after Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)had appointed a Shura of 7 persons from whom the khalifah should be appointed. Remember this fact very carefully that only one of those seven could be appointed as Khalifah. Again I do not see the public having a choice in this. What if they were not happy with the chocie of seven? What if they wanted 10? What if they wanted a different seven? Following this appointment Hadhrat Abdur Rahman Ibn Awf :anhu: consulted with the Ahlul Madinah and arrived at HIS decision. Please note that even though the means were present to consult the other regions of the Islamic dawlah they were not consulted. Their job was to simply pledge bay'ah.

Hadhrat Ali :anhu:'s appointment as Khalifah was agin made by the senior sahaabah present in Madinah. However, the events surrounding his appointment was full of trouble due to the fitnah that had engulfed the Ummah due to the murder of Hadhrat Uthman (radhiallahu anhu).

In the Qur'aan Allah Ta'ala states,

3:159......and consult them in affairs (of moment). Then, when thou hast taken a decision put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).

Note that Allah Ta'ala has left the decision solely for the Ameer which at the time was Rasulullah :saw:. He :taala: does not state the plural pronoun 'azamtum (when you all have decided)' it is 'azamta (when YOU have decided).' I cannot see representation here also as the Ameer has the right to go against all the wishes of the consultation as the final decision is his. This also does not sound very democratic does it???

:ws:

Thanks for elaborating on the how the caliphs were appointed. It should however be realized that the exemplary character of the four caliphs was so prominently expressed by the Prophet s.a.s., that there comes no question or ambiguities in the Muslim hearts about their sincerity, abilities, supremacy and integrity. There is no historical evidence that the Salaf as a majority didnot approve of the appointments of the rashidun caliphs which would have proven your point that democracy would have been a hindrance to the rashidun caliphates success. There is no replacement for the prophet commenting on which are the best people in our community. The prophet had knowledge/consience/reason inspired to him by Allah.

The pious generation was blessed and fortunate enough to be lead by people indirectly appointed by the prophet himself with the numerous statements of his regarding their premier character and models.

-they were publicly proffessed as the best humans the earth will ever see by the prophet himself
-the muslim community was homogenous and not sectarian or minimally divisive
-even though their was no active choice of leader, it was people's allegiance which satisfied the caliphs to rule. no caliph operated under lack of allegiance by the community
- apart from the leaders being the best of the best generation, the generation as a whole was the best generation of Muslims according to the prophet with an enlightened understanding of religion. Today's generation of muslim is argumentative, divisive, lacks religious sophistry.

Thus there are several factors in summary which explain why the historical appointment's of the rashidun caliphs was a successful and viable alternative to the also successful option of the masses actively selecting leaders to run government. Even then it seems very rapidly the lack of democracy as a political philosophy outside the immediate peri-prophetic period led to unsatisfaction with direct appointments and chaos entered the community with the subsequent civil wars. IF Yazid and Imam Hussein had left it to the ballot and people of the caliphate perhaps the nightmare of kerbala wouldnt have emerged. Today looking at the divisiveness of the ummah If we are to make a judgement without the ballot on who should lead, people would just argue and mouth each other whole day long and chaos during political transitions of power would ensue.

[Abu Zakir]

Today looking at the divisiveness of the ummah If we are to make a judgement without the ballot on who should lead, people would just argue and mouth each other whole day long and chaos during political transitions of power would ensue.


Seriously you should read Ibn Khaldun if you have not already done so. According to him, leadership emerges when a group of people (any number) become united upon religion and they select a leader from amongst themselves. There is nothing stopping any Muslims anywhere from choosing a leader from amongst themselves, people who put themselves forward for a leadership role are auto excluded. Whoever obeys the leader will have success and victory, whoever does not will be a failure.

[abd7861]

Thanks for elaborating on the how the caliphs were appointed. It should however be realized that the exemplary character of the four caliphs was so prominently expressed by the Prophet s.a.s., that there comes no question or ambiguities in the Muslim hearts about their sincerity, abilities, supremacy and integrity. There is no historical evidence that the Salaf as a majority didnot approve of the appointments of the rashidun caliphs which would have proven your point that democracy would have been a hindrance to the rashidun caliphates success. There is no replacement for the prophet commenting on which are the best people in our community. The prophet had knowledge/consience/reason inspired to him by Allah.

The pious generation was blessed and fortunate enough to be lead by people indirectly appointed by the prophet himself with the numerous statements of his regarding their premier character and models.

-they were publicly proffessed as the best humans the earth will ever see by the prophet himself
-the muslim community was homogenous and not sectarian or minimally divisive
-even though their was no active choice of leader, it was people's allegiance which satisfied the caliphs to rule. no caliph operated under lack of allegiance by the community
- apart from the leaders being the best of the best generation, the generation as a whole was the best generation of Muslims according to the prophet with an enlightened understanding of religion. Today's generation of muslim is argumentative, divisive, lacks religious sophistry.

Thus there are several factors in summary which explain why the historical appointment's of the rashidun caliphs was a successful and viable alternative to the also successful option of the masses actively selecting leaders to run government. Even then it seems very rapidly the lack of democracy as a political philosophy outside the immediate peri-prophetic period led to unsatisfaction with direct appointments and chaos entered the community with the subsequent civil wars. IF Yazid and Imam Hussein had left it to the ballot and people of the caliphate perhaps the nightmare of kerbala wouldnt have emerged. Today looking at the divisiveness of the ummah If we are to make a judgement without the ballot on who should lead, people would just argue and mouth each other whole day long and chaos during political transitions of power would ensue.

:salam:

Brother, you have proffered your opinion in your post. We are not obligated to follow opinion. The Ahkaam of the Shariah are from Quran, Sunnah and Ijma. Each of these contain categories that have been eruditely elaborated on by the Fuqaha. Please also remember that an opinion (without Shar'i basis) is in Jahunnum.

None of your arguments are from the above sources.

If deomocracy was a valid form of government Allah Ta'ala would have inspired His Rasul :saw:. This was not done and authority has been from the time of Rasulullah :saw: on the Ameer. No constitution can override the Ameer except the Shariah.

We have been commanded to stick to the Sunnah of Rasulullah :Saw: and His Sahaabah :anhum:. The practice of the Khulafaau Rashideen is enough for us.

Hadhrat Umar :anhu: has clealry stated that Izzah is only through Islam and this we follow.

:ws:

[mubakr]

:salam: Brother, you have proffered your opinion in your post. :ws:

Thank you for your response. But its not my opinion. Its a factual reality. The Caliphs Abubakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were approved as role model leaders of their time by the majority of the Ummah because of Prophetic hadiths on and about them. What opinion is there in this? - it is an undeniable historical fact.

[Usama2]

Even then it seems very rapidly the lack of democracy as a political philosophy outside the immediate peri-prophetic period led to unsatisfaction with direct appointments and chaos entered the community with the subsequent civil wars.

This is an undeniable historical fact and factual reality?

[mubakr]

This is an undeniable historical fact and factual reality?

What I wrote in the post immediately preceding your's is a unarguable fact unless you want to bring new evidence that the majority ummah dissapproved of the caliphs.

[AbuFatimah]

we have no problem wth the idea of voting in a leader. the problem is with him going up for reelection every 4 years and the laws of the land being chosen in parliament rather than from qur'an and sunnah

[abd7861]

What I wrote in the post immediately preceding your's is a unarguable fact unless you want to bring new evidence that the majority ummah dissapproved of the caliphs.

:salam:

You seem to have become slightly confused my brother. The question is not on whether the majority of the ummah were happy with the appointments of the Khulafaau Rashideen but whether they were made to participate in the choosing of the leader. There was no question whether they were happy or not once bayah was given they were duty bound to hear and obey.

It is tremendously clear that the Sunnah of the Sahaabah :anhum: was to not involve the whole of the Ummah in the decision making process of choosing a leader in the 'democratic' sense.

Let me ask you a question. When Hadhrat Abu Bakr :anhu: decided to wage the Riddah wars against the Murtaddeen he did so by going against the majority opinion of the Senior Sahaabah. He was a lone voice and he disregarded the majority opinion. He utilised his exclusive right as an Ameer to wage war. The other Sahaabah :anhum: and the Muslim Ummah simply obeyed his decision whether they agreed to it or not.

If democracy was used as a process at that time we would not have been blessed with the priceless treasure of Islam. Ponder and reflect on this.

:ws:

[Abu Zakir]

In modern democracies it is usually a lone guy who takes the nation to war..he does not hold a rerendum and after he is elected to power he usually does whatever he likes. Who took Britain to War in WWII? Who decided to invade Iraq after 9/11? Usually a handful of people even when the majority of the people were against it. Written constitutions are ignored very often, they are not binding on people who were not even alive when the founders wrote it. In America they have the Electoral College system to select candidates.


Islamic Law is against the concept of majority rule, and the idea that the majority is right by default, often they are not. If a majority selects the leader by voting all they are doing is making a leader, they are not necessarily choosing the best leader for the job, to select the best leader for the job elections and votes by majorities are useless. They may as well draw lots to select a leader, in democracies lots of money and energy is wasted in running election campaigns and after the election all the Civil Servants are not replaced, very often they remain in power for decades and they run the country. Democracy is a sham, it does not give freedom to anyone, it takes away freedom, and makes everyone into a slave of the state. Wake up and stop believing the nonsense.

[mubakr]

:salam: It is tremendously clear that the Sunnah of the Sahaabah :anhum: was to not involve the whole of the Ummah in the decision making process of choosing a leader in the 'democratic' sense. :ws: And that is reasonable in those circumstances because the prophet had made public superior qualities about these leaders SPECIFICALLY. We have no Prophet to make leadership choices for us today and we have no Hadith saying that the majority populace should not be involved in selecting their leaders or parliamentarians. There is a defect logic in trying to present one biased opinion from the proponents of anti-democratic systems. It was historically a fact that the rashidun caliphate leaders were the elite of the prophet s.a.s community and the entire salaf knew about that. Anyone arguing against their decision was bound to fail. However we have no process by which we can elect an elite who should come up and say ' I am elite ' choose me and the choosing committee will choose him. The choosing committee anyways is always the previous leader himself wether it is hosni mubarak, hafiz al assad to bashar, the saudi royals confining it to the house of saud, the emirati kings confining it to their family. No innovation in leadership. And that is why after Ali r.a. sudden death there was chaos in political transitions of leadership. I spit at so called 'Amirs' like bashar al -assad whereas your reasoning, forgive me if I am wrong, seems to be that Amir should be protected against the wishes of the populace. Until today bashar al -assad hasnt said anything kufr openly in public. Infact he invokes Allah. So? You as a populace are not allowed to overthrow him democratically because the previous Amir of syria hafiz al assad gave his authority to him. I spit at this system you are describing that the leader chooses the next leader exclusively. The prophet never chose a leader directly but he gave clear cut indirect clues as to who were the superior lot and leaders of the community so an alternative to democracy worked simply because of prophetic barakah and insight into the leaders. And I would like if you are willing to do so to present more decisions made by the RAshidun caliphate where there is historical evidence that the whole Muslim community dissapproved off. I cant think of any in my weak memory. I havent read extensive details about the Riddah wars but I would be surprised if I was told the majority of the salaf were against the riddah wars.

[Quenty]

Salam,
I want to thank you for this thread - has been very informative. I want to make one point:

Who exactly should be elected? Legislators or The Executive? I think it is a very important issue.

I can see no reason for the election of legislators. Why would God's law require acceptance by the majority of the voters? Could they disagree? If not - then any election is pointless. If they could (in principle) disagree, then it's shirk and no reason to discuss it.

The executive on the other hand may be elected, but why should that be done by general elections? Some people are more competent to make that choice. Perhaps only men, or ulema, or only the former khalifah with his advisors?

and one last thing - personally I think that unchanging shariah is a better safeguard against abuses of power by the government, than a constitution, that can always be changed or abolished as anything created by humans.

[Usama2]

Mubakr,
It seems you attempted to frame the political history of the righteous caliphate in a Manichean duality of 'success = democracy vs. failure = Islamic history'.

I find that dubious today given that so called Muslim democrats throughout the Muslim world are the FIRST to deny the idea of an Islamic state and the Hukm Sharii as an ideological foundation which offers its own ruling system.

I went to school/lived in Washington DC in the 1990s and I debated and heard all the time Muslim 'democrats' from various Muslim organizations DENY the Shariah based Islamic state while triumphing democracy.

Here is what the new Tunisian president Marzouki said about this matter:


"When people tell me that we are going back to some new Islamic dictatorship, they don't understand the fact that Islam is not the main force; the main force is democracy. We secularists did not become Islamists, the Islamists became democrats, and this is why I think the Arab spring is the triumph of democracy and not Islamism," he said.

"Islam is just trying to use democracy but in fact when you use democracy, I would not say you become a slave of it, but you become part of it. So this must be understood by the west. Even if we have elections and Ennahda prevails, it does not mean that the Islamist mood is prevailing. It means that the Islamist movement has been co-opted by democracy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/moncef-marzoouki-seeds-change-tunisia

This issue is not new.

It is a common thing, looking for various elements of Islam to justify an entirely alien concept which itself promotes kufr- "...become a slave to it..."- as Marzouki mentioned.

I'm not saying elections are alien to Islam. I'm not saying voting for representatives is alien to Islam. "Wakila" is an aspect of fiqh.
However, the nature of transition of power should be based on reality- not slavery to a Greek myth.


First, the majority of the Muslim Ummah did NOT approve of the caliphate going to Abu Bakr (rah) as understood by the Riddah wars. The 'majority' of people of the Muslim Ummah did not have a concept of individualism, rather they followe their tribal, family, or monarchial leaders in most matters. And many Muslim leaders rebelled against the caliphate of Abu Bakr (rah) and most of their people followed so that only Madinah accepted his rule entirely.

Many regions of the Islamic state also followed false prophets- literally apostasizing from Islam entirely. They did this when their rulers/chiefs/leaders joined forced with Musailima and others.

Second, the demise of the righteous caliphate was NOT due to a lack of democracy.
According to ulama I have studied, the demise of the righteous caliphate was due to the demise of the sahaba (rahm) as a uniform group which propelled and led the Ummah. The sahaba (rahm) led the Ummah outside of but in tandem to the leadership of the caliphate. Caliph Umar (rah) kept them in Madinah which concentrated the group energy for the sake of the caliphate itself. Caliph Uthman (rah) determined that it was necessary to let them go in order to spread Islam within the newly acquired regions of the Islamic state. However, this dissipated their energy and diminished their group effort. As a result, the ethn-centric political groups filled the vacuum. And these 'material' political groups who defined themselves based on blood, or material interests, rather than the ideological principles of Islam, dominated over the remaining sahaba and tabiin and salaf. Hence, Bani Ummaya's rule.



Third, the sahaba (rahm), or the sahabatul Muhammad (saaw) as they were originally called in Makka, formed an actual group and party organization. They had a membership which was based on ideology- not any material element. 3:104 embodies them.



"And let there be [arising] from amongst you a 'band/group/party' inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be the successful"

They were in addition to the entire Muslim Ummah, or Ummatul Muhammad (saaw) as the Ummah was called, but they benefited and helped lead the Ummah.

Fourth, the primary objective of transition of power is to maintain the Islamic state and liberation of Islam from Taghut, and all the obligations which come from this. As long as this is accomplished, the votes from common people is not critical. Rather, the common people engage in the Bayah, allegiance to the ruler.
Today's people are not like yesterday, you are right about that.

[mh16388]

love this thread. someone can write an entire article which takes apart democracy just by analyzing the beautiful posts.
did i give someone any ideas? : p

[janaveronikazahra]

Salam,
I want to thank you for this thread - has been very informative. I want to make one point:

Who exactly should be elected? Legislators or The Executive? I think it is a very important issue.

I can see no reason for the election of legislators. Why would God's law require acceptance by the majority of the voters? Could they disagree? If not - then any election is pointless. If they could (in principle) disagree, then it's shirk and no reason to discuss it.

The executive on the other hand may be elected, but why should that be done by general elections? Some people are more competent to make that choice. Perhaps only men, or ulema, or only the former khalifah with his advisors?

and one last thing - personally I think that unchanging shariah is a better safeguard against abuses of power by the government, than a constitution, that can always be changed or abolished as anything created by humans.

this is very interesting idea,
to choose executives in election... really interesting, hope some will react on that.
It came to my mind that SCAF in Egypt - many consider highest military figures for best what Egypt can have at the moment - honest motivated to do the best for Egyptian people. I supose they are all muslims.

w alikum assalam

[Usama2]

this is very interesting idea,
to choose executives in election... really interesting, hope some will react on that.
It came to my mind that SCAF in Egypt - many consider highest military figures for best what Egypt can have at the moment - honest motivated to do the best for Egyptian people. I supose they are all muslims.

w alikum assalam

Sister, it is important to look at every political player for who he actually is and espouses. SCAF are members of the Egyptian generals corps. Generals corps are highly selective, exclusive group of individuals picked for their compliance, obedience, and adherence to the ideas of the political power at the time, in this case Mubarak and his liberal capitalism. As most of them were selected by Mubarak or Sadat. They are NOT mere soldiers- they are political players.

And SCAF represents obedience to the world order of the Taghut with its nationalist constructs ( egyptian nation state, UN, perpetual treaties, compliance with international law, etc)

It would better for there to be a military coup by colonels who are NOT political players but who supported the cause of Islam.
Such a coup could occur without much bloodshed, or could be entirely bloodless if done strategically.

But we can learn from Egypt's reality: the structure of the nation states of the Muslim world rely on the power and authority being with the military- not the people. In fact, the modern nation state throughout the world transfers the power to the military as a result of the concentrated efforts of the state. As they have all the weapons and organization, the people are largely helpless until they have weapons and comparable organization, or elements of the military side with the people.

The Tiannemen Square uprising in China in 1989 was unsuccessful because the military remained unified and opposed the people's movement.
The Algerian 'spring' in 1988-1992 was repressed by the military who acted against the president and popular elections.

The 'modern era' has revealed a level of advancement in miltiary science such that WWI and WWII represented the most destructive wars in human history due to 'modernization' of military power.

Egypt's people are fooled by the materialistic agenda and their lack of higher Islamic political leadership. No one should ever saying supporting Islam will lead to better economic conditions, jobs, a chicken in every pot, etc. This is not consistent with reality.
Sadly, many Egyptians are used to voting and thinking of politics as how it will serve their material interests rather than how they can advance Islam in life.
I recently heard an Egyptian say that at least Mubarak didn't lead them into any war. As if NOT fighting for Right and against Munkar is something good?

[Abu Zakir]

The choosing committee anyways is always the previous leader himself wether it is hosni mubarak, hafiz al assad to bashar, the saudi royals confining it to the house of saud, the emirati kings confining it to their family. No innovation in leadership. And that is why after Ali r.a. sudden death there was chaos in political transitions of leadership. I spit at so called 'Amirs' like bashar al -assad whereas your reasoning, forgive me if I am wrong, seems to be that Amir should be protected against the wishes of the populace. Until today bashar al -assad hasnt said anything kufr openly in public. Infact he invokes Allah. So? You as a populace are not allowed to overthrow him democratically because the previous Amir of syria hafiz al assad gave his authority to him. I spit at this system you are describing that the leader chooses the next leader exclusively.


Modern structuralist governments are all powerful, they have destroyed all opposition making it difficult for anyone to remove the corrupt regime. In non structuralist societies, there is always the possibility of a new power to emerge and take over the government. There are no huge weapons and police and armies to keep the population down. This is why being armed and ready (as citizens are in America), is a good thing....because it means the government cannot gain control over you.

Rebelling against the government should be avoided...it is not worth the bloodshed and insecurity it causes. It is better to quietly work towards establishing the deen.

[Anybody]

Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem

Below, I am posting the following article because I believe, Insha-Allah, it is relevant to our discussion on democracy. For example, I disagree partially with the article, specifically where it says that the reason for countries turning atheist lies in their "best standard of living." However, during many golden periods of history and with, yes, the higher standards of living, atheism was not a phenomena. It only predominates the 21st century, and at least part of the reason is the modern-nation states' practice of modern "democracy" and its intertwined rhetoric that supports secularism, liberalism, individualism, Social Darwinism, capitalism, materialism and technological proliferation. For example, I remember a lecturer asking us to make sense of this: Correlation between crime rise and ice cream sales? This correlation is true; however, obviously, this doesn't make sense at face value. However, if you look at the underlying reason, you find that crime rates rise during the summer. In that same way, I believe this article fails to take into consideration the political system of governance which promotes ideologies that breed atheism. Also, from all accounts in ahadith, it seems that the time of Mahdi :alayhis: will witness a hitherto unknown prosperity; however, humanity will not fall to atheism in the golden age, except in the time of Dajjal's interference. Similarly, if an individual says that democracy's values can be interspersed with Islam, then that individual is making an assumption of compatibility, which I do not find not exists, especially if you peruse democracies' functions and ideals and legislative and political histories. Democracy gives power to demagogues, not the public; however, the public's interests are represented by the Khalifa, as per Shariah limitations and definitions.

System of governance during the time of Mahdi :alayhis: and Isa :alayhis:? It will be the Islamic Caliphate, not democracy.

Allah knows best.


Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038

Countries with the best standard of living are turning atheist. That shift offers a glimpse into the world's future.

Religious people are annoyed by claims that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.

The view that religious belief will give way to atheism is known as the secularization thesis. The specific version that I favor (1) is known as the existential security hypothesis. The basic idea is that as people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence. They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.

The notion that improving living conditions are associated with a decline in religion is supported by a mountain of evidence (1,2,3).

That does not prevent some serious scholars, like political scientist Eric Kaufmann (4), from making the opposite case that religious fundamentalists will outbreed the rest of us. Yet, noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve.

Moreover, as religious fundamentalists become economically integrated, young women go to work and produce smaller families, as is currently happening for Utah's Mormons.

The most obvious approach to estimating when the world will switch over to being majority atheist is based on economic growth. This is logical because economic development is the key factor responsible for secularization. In deriving this estimate, I used the nine most godless countries as my touchstone (excluding Estonia as a formerly communist country).

The countries were Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These nine countries averaged out at the atheist transition in 2004 (5) with exactly half of the populations disbelieving in God. Their gross domestic product (GDP) averaged $29,822 compared to $10,855 for the average country in the world. How long will it take before the world economy has expanded sufficiently that the GDP of the average country has caught up to the average for the godless countries in 2004?

Using the average global growth rate of GDP for the past 30 years of 3.33 percent (based on International Monetary Fund data from their website), the atheist transition would occur in 2035.

Belief in God is not the only relevant measure of religion, of course. A person might believe in God in a fairly superficial way without religion affecting his or her daily life. One way of assessing the depth of religious commitment is to ask survey participants whether they think that religion is important in their daily lives as the Gallup Organization has done in worldwide nationally representative surveys.

If fewer than 50 percent of the population agreed that religion was important to them, then the country has effectively crossed over to a secular majority. The godless countries by religiosity were Spain, South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay, Germany and France. At a growth rate of 3.33 percent per year it would be 2041 before the average country in the world would be at an equivalent level of affluence as these godless nations.

If national wealth drives secularization, the global population will cross an atheist threshold where the majority see religion as unimportant by 2041.

Averaging across the two measures of atheism, the entire world population would cross the atheist threshold by about 2038 (average of 2035 for disbelief and 2041 for religiosity). Although 2038 may seem improbably fast, this requires only a shift of approximately 1 percent per year whether in religiosity or belief in God. Using the Human Development Index as a clock suggests an even earlier arrival for the atheist transition (1).

Is the loss of religious belief something fear? Contrary to the claims of religious leaders, Godless countries are highly moral nations with an unusual level of social trust, economic equality, low crime and a high level of civic engagement (5). We could do with some of that.

Source. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-defeat-religion-by-2038_b_1565108.html)

:hasbun: I don't know if what the article's prediction is true or not; however, I do know that, "And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah" (Quran 3:54).

If I have said anything that is good and true, it is from Allah, and anything other than that is my own mistake.

[TheEqualizer]

Democracy is Hypocrisy.

[Abu Zakir]

Atheism may or may not occur due to material prosperity.

Atheism started out as a minority movement in the modern west, it became militant during the French Revolution.

They were against the Christian religion and Church and they wanted to build a new society where man ruled over other men without the limits of established religion...money lenders especially wanted this so they could get round the law prohibiting charging Interest. These people were anti religion and Christianity because of the actions of the Church and the way religion was used to oppress people. Today this atheism has become very fashionable, Atheism gives us the laws of man the unmerciful while Islam gives us the law of Allah the All-Merciful. We no longer recognize our slavery to the money lenders and bankers, even though it is right in front of our eyes and we can see it and feel it, we have been educated to consider it normal and call it freedom and prosperity. It is the perfect control system.

[mubakr]

I find that dubious today given that so called Muslim democrats throughout the Muslim world are the FIRST to deny the idea of an Islamic state and the Hukm Sharii as an ideological foundation which offers its own ruling system.

I went to school/lived in Washington DC in the 1990s and I debated and heard all the time Muslim 'democrats' from various Muslim organizations DENY the Shariah based Islamic state

............. the primary objective of transition of power is to maintain the Islamic state and liberation of Islam from Taghut, and all the obligations which come from this. As long as this is accomplished, the votes from common people is not critical. Rather, the common people engage in the Bayah, allegiance to the ruler.
..
Since you keep on promulgating about this 'Islamic state', I would be delighted to learn abit more to try and comprehend what this Islamic state of yours is. If you dont mind I will give a few quotations from a book I am currently reading.


Since it is impossible to know whether or not Muslims would accept or reject any particular view until it is openly and freely expressed and debated, it is necessary to maintain complete freedom of opinion, belief, and expression for such views to emerge and be propagated. The idea of prior censorship is therefore inherently destructive and counterproductive for the development of any Islamic doctrine or principle; hence, maintaining the possibilities of dissent is the only way for the tradition to remain responsive to the needs of believers. As I will argue, the necessary space for dissent and debate is best secured now through constitutional democratic governance and protection of human rights. In other words, these modern concepts and institutions are necessary not only for the religious freedom of Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of any present territorial state but for the survival and development of Islam itself. Indeed, freedom of dissent and debate was always essential for the development of Shari'a, because it enabled consensus to emerge freely and evolve around certain views that matured into established principles through acceptance and practice by generations of Muslims in a wide variety of settings. After all, every orthodox view that comes to prevail was a heresy to the previous view, including Islam itself in relation to the religious and social beliefs of Arabia before the Prophet. (This is not to say that every heresy should or will become the orthodox view.)

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im. Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a (pp. 30-31). Kindle Edition.

In short my question to you is how will your Islamic state accomodate discussions and dissident opinions on Islam for a pluralistic Muslim population if the ruling party/caliph is biased to one particular complex out of many modern Muslim religious identities. I would appreciate a pragmatic response which is intended to actually work in the modern day world rather than theorizing.

Sorry to go off topic but I am keen to know more about this Islamic state you have hypothesized and how it will work out. I would be quoting you some of the arguments from a book discussing the role of sharia in the modern world and statehood.

[Usama2]

.
Since you keep on promulgating about this 'Islamic state', I would be delighted to learn abit more to try and comprehend what this Islamic state of yours is. If you dont mind I will give a few quotations from a book I am currently reading.



It is good that you are interested.
First, here is an online book by shaykh al Mawardi (rh) titled Ahkam Sultaniyah- Laws of Islamic Governance. It is widely seen as the most definitive classical fiqh work on the Islamic state, khilafah, sultanate/caliphate.

al Ahkam al Sultaniya (http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/Al-Ahkam%20as-Sultaniyyah.pdf)

It should be noted that al Mawardi wrote it for the rulers of his time, the Abbasi khilafah in Baghdad.
Nonetheless, it shows that there IS an Islamic state espoused by Islam, that it is not a figment of my imagination, and that it is important for Muslims to know it, and believe in it and its possibilities.






.

Since it is impossible to know whether or not Muslims would accept or reject any particular view until it is openly and freely expressed and debated, it is necessary to maintain complete freedom of opinion, belief, and expression for such views to emerge and be propagated. The idea of prior censorship is therefore inherently destructive and counterproductive for the development of any Islamic doctrine or principle; hence, maintaining the possibilities of dissent is the only way for the tradition to remain responsive to the needs of believers. As I will argue, the necessary space for dissent and debate is best secured now through constitutional democratic governance and protection of human rights. In other words, these modern concepts and institutions are necessary not only for the religious freedom of Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of any present territorial state but for the survival and development of Islam itself. Indeed, freedom of dissent and debate was always essential for the development of Shari'a, because it enabled consensus to emerge freely and evolve around certain views that matured into established principles through acceptance and practice by generations of Muslims in a wide variety of settings. After all, every orthodox view that comes to prevail was a heresy to the previous view, including Islam itself in relation to the religious and social beliefs of Arabia before the Prophet. (This is not to say that every heresy should or will become the orthodox view.)

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im. Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a (pp. 30-31). Kindle Edition.



So this quote calls for 'democracy and human rights' to set the "neutral ground" wherein we can discuss Shariah and the Islamic state? And in this author's mind, are there enemies of Islam, or will everyone just stop trying to destroy Islam and Muslims? It sounds more like a highly dangerous dream who's outcome is Muslim people wake up after many years and the world is a nightmare.
Or it is like the one who advocates committing adultery- a one night stand- in order to strengthen one's marriage.




This is not how the Prophet (saw) established the Islamic state. And democracy has its OWN tendency towards liberalism, secularism, civil society which are directly opposed to and composed to opposed Islam and the Islamic state.



.

In short my question to you is how will your Islamic state accomodate discussions and dissident opinions on Islam for a pluralistic Muslim population if the ruling party/caliph is biased to one particular complex out of many modern Muslim religious identities. I would appreciate a pragmatic response which is intended to actually work in the modern day world rather than theorizing.

Sorry to go off topic but I am keen to know more about this Islamic state you have hypothesized and how it will work out. I would be quoting you some of the arguments from a book discussing the role of sharia in the modern world and statehood.



What do you mean "discussions and dissident opinions on Islam"- on which particular issues and in what context?

To save you some time, we Muslims are inundated by the political context generated by the enemies of Islam so that they continually interject political wedge issues and controversy in order to dominate direction and and manipulate responses. So any issue about 'women' or 'minorities' has to be placed in a realistic context- not one generated by disbelieving enemies from outside the Muslim world.


The Islamic state is led by a ruler who receives the Baya`- pledge of allegiance from the people. This Bayah is described in fiqh which includes obeying, not taking up arms against the ruler, agreeing to comply to standards of conduct, etc.

If after the Baya` people disagree on a decision, then they should follow the agreed upon manner of addressing disagreement, which is generally established in fiqh as going to the ruler and expressing dissent and advice. The sahaba did this for the khulafa rashidoon, and the khulafa facilitated this by maintaining a majlis ash shura in which people had representatives who expressed viewpoints to the ruler in day to day matters.

But if you are raising issues about Aqidah, such as how the Alevi might have a disagreement with the caliph about the attributes of Allah or the deification of Ali (rah), then that is a separate matter.

Any particular scenerios or examples you wish to raise?

From the online book Al Ahkam Al Sultaniya, here is a quote from the a preIslamic poet al Afwah al Awdi:


there is no benefit to a leaderless people when disorder reigns; and they will never have a leader if the ignorant amongst them leads.

[mubakr]

It is good that you are interested.

Nonetheless, it shows that there IS an Islamic state espoused by Islam, that it is not a figment of my imagination, and that it is important for Muslims to know it, and believe in it and its possibilities.

This is not how the Prophet (saw) established the Islamic state. And democracy has its OWN tendency towards liberalism, secularism, civil society which are directly opposed to and composed to opposed Islam and the Islamic state.

What do you mean "discussions and dissident opinions on Islam"- on which particular issues and in what context?

The Islamic state is led by a ruler who receives the Baya`- pledge of allegiance from the people. This Bayah is described in fiqh which includes obeying, not taking up arms against the ruler, agreeing to comply to standards of conduct, etc.

If after the Baya` people disagree on a decision, then they should follow the agreed upon manner of addressing disagreement, which is generally established in fiqh as going to the ruler and expressing dissent and advice. The sahaba did this for the khulafa rashidoon, and the khulafa facilitated this by maintaining a majlis ash shura in which people had representatives who expressed viewpoints to the ruler in day to day matters.

But if you are raising issues about Aqidah, such as how the Alevi might have a disagreement with the caliph about the attributes of Allah or the deification of Ali (rah), then that is a separate matter.

Any particular scenerios or examples you wish to raise?



Thanks for your response. I will inshAllah make effort to read the book you have linked as time permits me.

Yes brother I am keen to learn and hope you are too about this 'Islamic state' you are advocating because I am very keen to learn what government will best accelerate prosperity for the ummah. I do believe that Islam is the ultimate solution however I dont believe in the concept or necessity of the sharia state. I believe sharia and religion have invaluable role for peoples' lives. I believe society is doomed if it rejects Islam and becomes irreligious in morals/culture like what has happened to Europe. However I also believe government has a specific role in today's societies which necessitate it be secular. The author of the book I talked about feels that the concept of a 'sharia state' is a very dangerous illusory idea because the post-colonial nation state is completely different interms of role of function, relationship, influence and power relations government has with its people.

I will give you some off my head very random examples of some scenarios where a sharia state wouldnot be suitable for discussion/dissent and debate
Lets say a salafi leader with Aqidah/Fiqh around Salafism is the khalifa. His wazirs, aides and his shura committee are predominantly fixated on salafism and wahabbism and I happen to live in that country.

CAn one preach and propagate the nature of Allah according to an understanding that there is no literal anthropomorphism
CAn a shia stand and argue his historical islamic point of view in this state as most shias are considered heretics yet make a substantial minority of Muslims
Will tabligh ijtema's be banned since occassionally salafi scholars consider tablighees as heretic sufis
CAn one preach and propagate that democracy is compatible with Islam as it simply is the mind of many muslims seeking solutions.
CAn one preach, propagate and practice hanafi fiqh in public considering that SAlafis argue that the hanafi school of thought instituted itself many years after the prophet and his sahaba and is in some form a heresy that people exclusively follow a founder of a fiqh school and the interpretations of generation of their scholars.
Will one be able to let his wife dress according to his and her consensus of Islamic modesty.
Will one be given access to state media - television and newspapers to debate, express, argue, advocate his/her view points about Islam

Innumerable liberties I hold invaluable would have succumbed if I were living in the proposed sharia state even in matters I firmly believe I was doing with religious consideration. My religious interpretation wont hold any meaning if the state has a particular view about the issue at hand and freedom of conscience/belief would be trampled.

There are several examples of things which emerged in Islam later by consensus and that wouldnt have happened if Islamic history had a 'sharia states' equivalent to the proposed Islamic modern nation state. The author of the book argues that Islamic system of governance of previous ages were a huge contrast to post-colonial times and that the proposed ISlamic state today advocated by sharia state proponents is unable to be transposed on previous ISlamic history because of the very nature of the modern european mode state which whole of humanity lives in. Rationalism, sufism, schools of fiqh, certain theological viewpoints, hadith compilations, tabligh, mawlid e.t.c. would never have been part of Islam if these had emerged in a hypothetical modern day 'sharia state' led by a particular Islamic group. Historically there has been no state with powers equal to today thats why some people dont believe an ISlamic state is logical. Thats why the modern nation state can only be secular as religion is too controversial, diverse, heterogenous and life changing that if one view of religion gains that power it could be fatal/lethal/unbearable for other viewpoints and thus for a whole particular community of people.

These are only some examples - I hope you are aware that Ibn Arabi was executed despite him having a substantial following historically and today. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal was tortured for expressing that Quran was uncreated - a heretic belief in the eyes of the khalif. Imam Hussein was slaughtered for a non-violent opposition of the khalif and his leadership. Now just imagine the fate of an innumerable daees', preachers, activists if todays 'modern nation state' has a religious government. The previous incidents occured when the caliphate didnt even have powers equivalent to today or societies with such heterogenous beliefs that controversial issues and differences emerged within five minute of conversation.