what is democracy?

[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 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 and Isa ? 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.

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

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.