Islamic Democracy!

[Abu Zakir]

QUOTE=Jibrail;801152]Salaam


"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kafiroon).” [TMQ 5:44]

Also by rejecting these decisive verses, and denying a conclusive text makes a person a Kafir as the Muslim Fuqaha’ have agreed

Jzk

I am not sure about this, interpretation of the verse you have given. I know the khawarij used this verse to fight against other Muslims and Muslims like Ali (RA) told them that they were mis-interpreting the Quran.

[Jibrail]

I am not sure about this, interpretation of the verse you have given. I know the khawarij used this verse to fight against other Muslims and Muslims like Ali (RA) told them that they were mis-interpreting the Quran.

Salaam brother.

Sorry, do you mean the translation? Or do you mean my words in the 2nd paragraph?

In regards to translation, this seems to be the same on many different translations of the quran. In relation to the 2nd paragraph i am just stating that rejecting any ayah of the quran intentionally is kufr, but do correct me if i am wrong.

I am not providing my tafsir of the ayah as it may have come across.

Jzk

[Abu Zakir]

ws

I mean the whole post. The khawarij made war with Ali (ra) using this verse they said that because Ali (ra) had made others a judge and ruler in a dispute he had comited kufr, after Ali (ra) explained to them that the verse was referring to non believers not Muslims some of them changed and joined Ali (ra), others continued. It was a long time ago when I read this somewhere so it might be wrong...but if we apply this ayah as interpreted we can like the khawarij make kufr of many rulers in the Muslim world who rule with laws other than the shariah.

Salaam brother.

Sorry, do you mean the translation? Or do you mean my words in the 2nd paragraph?

In regards to translation, this seems to be the same on many different translations of the quran. In relation to the 2nd paragraph i am just stating that rejecting any ayah of the quran intentionally is kufr, but do correct me if i am wrong.

I am not providing my tafsir of the ayah as it may have come across.

Jzk

[mubakr]

It would take too long to write everything that is wrong with democracy.

.......................... when a leader declares a state of emergency when 'normal' laws have become suspended, now people can be arrested and detained without charge. They can be locked up in camps. Suddenly everyone needs to carry ID papers, be body searched, all their movements and words are tracked.

I dont know what makes you think a dictator/Aristrocrat cannot bend the 'law' at his will. All the above acts you mentioned could be justified by a certain interpretation of sharia. Ulema (selected by the aristrocrat) will give fatwas of how social misconduct requires punishment and a state of emergency. Your arguments are very abstract and not exclusive to democracy at all. You have read too much anti-democracy propaganda and conjure up associations of exclusivity to democracy which are clearly inaccurate, subjectively biased and reflect an unfounded paranoia about a simple concept which is clearly at worst Islamically neutral with no inherent anti-Islamic value. Just re-read your paragraph above - You are in essence saying democracy which is a government elected to represent the people's orientation and will would end up instituting detention laws against its own people. Dont support with scenarios - explain how any reasonable person can explain how a concept for people's rule aims to subject the very people to self-inflicting 'detention/terror laws' as one of your main arguments against democracy. Does the sentence have any coherency or meaning. I cant grasp the association. Its a very abstract argument against democracy which is clearly conjecture and not a factual association. Several things can explain emergency detention legislation - Tyranny of an evil ruler, disbelief, greed (all leaders whose are power hungry will see opposition as threats and institute terror laws if they want wether aristrocrats or democratically elected leaders), wealth and desire for continuing and reckless exercise of power (a trait which aristrocracy has always failed to regulate even if aristocracy inherently as a concept does not reflect such things). Please explain your ideas more specifically and target the idea of democracy specifically rather than playing a jumping game of complex relationships of several concepts and trying and simplifying everything eventually into a democracy problem. Many of your arguments against democracy clearly target associated concepts in western governments like Riba, paper money, taxation and other arguments which weirdly all end up overriding and re-defining democracy from people's ideas/beliefs (Muslim's in Islamic democracy) of societal organization and desire for implementation to a spectacular summary combo of all these erroneous concepts and then you call this combo 'democracy proper' if I may label it.

Definition of proper: Limited to the thing specified

[Abu Zakir]

=mubakr;801316] Just re-read your paragraph above - You are in essence saying democracy which is a government elected to represent the people's orientation and will would end up instituting detention laws against its own people. Dont support with scenarios - explain how any reasonable person can explain how a concept for people's rule aims to subject the very people to self-inflicting 'detention/terror laws' as one of your main arguments against democracy. Does the sentence have any coherency or meaning. I cant grasp the association. Its a very abstract argument against democracy which is clearly conjecture and not a factual association. Several things can explain emergency detention legislation

The Democratic State is similar to the Dictatorial State, the only difference is that in the Democratic State you can vote people out...Bush goes and is replaced by Obama...but nothing else changes. Obama keeps and in some casrs enhances the laws made by Bush. The relationship between the governed and the governor is the same in a Democracy as well as a Dictatorship. Joseph Stalin in Soviet Russia can send people away in camps, can have them killed and the people can do nothing about it, the secret police will arrest and kill anyone who disagrees with Stalin...this is Dictatorship. America a Democracy is creating a similar culture where people who criticise Obama or disagree with their policies are called traitors..the power of the police is increased, laws are made to spy on people, because of the supposed thereat of Terrorism, the State takes more power in the name of security. Obama is authorised to send troops out on American soil, he can arrest people and hold them without charge...it is a small step away from Dictatorial powers...another event like 9/11 is enough to tip the scale. Try to understand what is being said here....the State is absolutist it has the monopoly power of violence, there are no competing power centres allowed...all policies are centralized and the technology allows for massive control of people, how they behave, what they think, how much money they spend, the value of their money...etc. etc. calling it Democracy and allowing the vote every 4 years does not change anything.

Aristocratic government is not absolutist, there are competing centres of power which keep the government in check, do not allow it to grab more power or gain more control over people it is Laissez-faire....less government, less control.

Islam is against Democracy because majorities voting on an issue is based on ignorance. Let us say there is a vote in the House whether to increase taxes or not and the majority of the house votes for an increase...this then becomes law...how is this a well thought out policy? You might as well toss a coin or draw lots. Democracy as I have shown above has not protected the governed from the elites who dominate. Imagine if you have a business and it fails because you did not run it very well...and the government decides to bail you out because you employ 30,000 people is that a good thing in your opinion? Bankers were bailed out with trillions of dollars....why should ordinary people work and pay their debts when the super rich get bailed out and protected? This is corruption at a deep level..and Democracy has not only allowed it, it has flourished it is slavery dressed up as freedom. If I cannot pay my mortgage on my small house I lose it and I become homeless, if I run my business badly I lose it, but if I am a billionaire banker I get to stay in business.....and this sounds like it is fair to you? In future this banker will continue to behave like a criminal he knows he will be bailed out. They are scum and they are in charge because they love Democracy.

[abumusab]

Salaam

It still seems that people are using the word democracy loosely without understanding its real meaning. Therefore ill ask you a simple question:

If democracy is defined as sovereignty to the people (as I clearly explained in my previous post), rather than sovereignty to Allah, do you still accept democracy?

If the answer is yes, then remember that according to the explicit words of the Qur’an whoever does not rule by whatever Allah has revealed, denying Allah’s right to legislate, as is the case with those who believe in democracy, is a Kafir!

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kafiroon).” [TMQ 5:44]

Also by rejecting these decisive verses, and denying a conclusive text makes a person a Kafir as the Muslim Fuqaha’ have agreed unanimously.

Jzk

Salaam - this is correct.

This verse is Qata'ie (definite) in meaning and nor has it ever been a subject of difference consequently.

The Qataie meaning of a verse does not change just because it has been misapplied in history. If we were to follow this dangerous logic, then we would dismiss many verses of the Quran since there has been no shortage of people who have misapplied them.

[Abu Zakir]

Originally Posted by mubakr

If you look at American history 43 presidents have been sworn in 220 years or so. American democracy struggles to attain its theoretical principles because of other factors and that is why it is failing. NOt because democracy is inherently an unstable idea. Freemasons, rise of atheism, Zionist power, unregulated banking and capitalist corporations, excessive lobbying influence and other reasons have hijacked american democracy and people's wills has been hindered. Even then democracy is responsible for ensuring the quick turnover of ruling elites, that politicians bend much of their effort to the will of the people and that transparency in government be fundamental. America's success cannot solely be attributed to democracy but democracy had its role to play.

Brother there is no quick turnover of ruling elites in America and there is no transparency in government. I work in Britain which is similar to America in many ways, the people I work with feel powerless to change anything, they complain sometimes, most do not even pay any attention to how badly they are being screwed by their governments, they busy themselves with television entertainment and forgetting about their troubles. They fear finding out how badly they are being screwed because it makes them feel, angry, resentful and as if their whole life has been a lie, so they try to forget....and the ruling elites encourage this attitude because it means they can continue un-hindered. They want this form of government world wide because they want to control everyone....if Muslims follow them down the route of Democracy it will lead to great pain and suffering....

[Abu Zakir]

What does this mean? 'definite'? Ali (ra) said the verse applied to kaffirun not Muslims...so you are saying Ali (ra) was wrong? This means when the family Saud conduct riba in their country which is against the laws of Allah...they are kafiroon? Are you sure you want to say this?

Salaam - this is correct.

This verse is Qata'ie (definite) in meaning and nor has it ever been a subject of difference consequently.

The Qataie meaning of a verse does not change just because it has been misapplied in history. If we were to follow this dangerous logic, then we would dismiss many verses of the Quran since there has been no shortage of people who have misapplied them.

[abumusab]

So the clear meaning in the verse is not disputed which is as it states "And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kafiroon)” in contravention to democracy in which its rule of the people.... which is the subject of this thread.

As previously stated, its application, correct or otherwise, does not alter the Qata'ie meaning of the verse itself which refutes those who advocate the sovereignty of man in any shape or form.

[mubakr]

Islam is against Democracy because majorities voting on an issue is based on ignorance. Let us say there is a vote in the House whether to increase taxes or not and the majority of the house votes for an increase...this then becomes law...how is this a well thought out policy? You might as well toss a coin or draw lots. Democracy as I have shown above has not protected the governed from the elites who dominate. Imagine if you have a business and it fails because you did not run it very well...and the government decides to bail you out because you employ 30,000 people is that a good thing in your opinion? Bankers were bailed out with trillions of dollars....why should ordinary people work and pay their debts when the super rich get bailed out and protected? This is corruption at a deep level..and Democracy has not only allowed it, it has flourished it is slavery dressed up as freedom. If I cannot pay my mortgage on my small house I lose it and I become homeless, if I run my business badly I lose it, but if I am a billionaire banker I get to stay in business.....and this sounds like it is fair to you? In future this banker will continue to behave like a criminal he knows he will be bailed out. They are scum and they are in charge because they love Democracy.

Without being too accusatory I will again insist your mind has been framed by too much anti-democratic literature that you have conjured up a picture of democracy proper which is completely flawed and unrepresentative of the concept.

As an example:

Let us say there is a vote in the House whether to increase taxes or not and the majority of the house votes for an increase...this then becomes law...how is this a well thought out policy?

Well thats why the very topic Islamic democracy. If the scholars educate the Muslim population that Taxation is an un-Islamic concept and that government revenues and structure has to be different i.e. small government and other avenues of revenue like the waqf or whatever the Fuqaha determine as the Islamic governmental revenue/expenditure specifications, then democracy will result in the modification of current western taxation concept to a completely overhauled Islamic one. Right now no scholar talks about taxation in mosque, media. Your assumption is that Muslims in a Islamic nation are disrespectful, rebellious, 'know-it-all' people who would fight the scholars and engage in personal ijtihad. That is a very condescending picture to hold of the Muslims. Every time you mention 'mob-rule' in a manner equating the populace as an uneducated, ignorant, bound to always make wrong choices crowd it shows a mentality which shows elitist thinking. Muslims are a beloved of Allah, we are a blessed lot. Allah has instilled in our hearts reverence for scholars. The majority population will always be swayed by the decisions of the righteous Ulema and Fuqaha even if the people themselves are a imperfect lot. As long as there remain Mujtahids true to the Sunnah of Nabi and his companions then as Muslims we will be inclined to follow the consensus of our scholars inshAllah. Again the bankers scenario is also deeply flawed and un-connected to democracy proper. Elites can be protected in an Aristocratic rulership or in a democracy, always less so in a democracy. People dont like opression and injustice and democracy enhances or allows expression of those sometime in a less than ideal way. Infact that is one of the very few grave risk of democracy that it can lead to a communist revolution for egalitarianism in a world of immoral elites. But if Islam regulates democratic thinking than that probability is significantly minimized.