How do we know democracy is not allowed in Islam? Is there some hadith or a quraanic verse? Why can’t we have a compromise between Islam and Democracy?
manmade laws? What about going for shariah
i would go with dictatorship if it is implemented by a military ruler based on Sharia.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Galaxy: *
i would go with dictatorship if it is implemented by a military ruler based on Sharia.
[/QUOTE]
Mard Momin Mard Haq, Zia ul haq, Zia ul Haq
There is no possibility of democracy in a religion based political system. And mr echo, you must correct yourself that there is no question of ‘compromise’ in islam.
How stupid can u lot get?
The first caliph was ELECTED by the people, not appointed.
Islam introduced democracy. - albeit not the version in practice today but one whos rules are set by of allah.
If we say islam is not compatible with democracy then how do we expalin the above.
Another question? does islam have a political system of governance, or is it that whoever takes hold of the reigns of leadership implements his/her own interpretation of islamic government?
AND i had to add this,
Zia was the most dispicable, unhumane, waste of space and time, and the worst person to have ruled pak. May he burn in the deepest parts of hellllllllll. - do you call EVERYONE who pays u mullahs a momin.... accordingly you should also call previous american presidents momins as they paid many a mullahs to fight the afghan war.
"Those who spread slogans of reform, liberty, democracy, and human Rights are in fact fighting Islam" ___ conservative daily Jomhoori Eslami (Islamic Republic), which belong to Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by haroonkhalid: *
manmade laws? What about going for shariah
[/QUOTE]
and whose interpretation of shariah would you enforce?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sahar02: *
and whose interpretation of shariah would you enforce?
[/QUOTE]
How about islams enterpretation of Shariah ? :) Its really not that hard you know. Look at the 4 Caliphs and how they ruled...in their rule are examples for the rest of us.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 1eyed: *
The first caliph was ELECTED by the people, not appointed.
Islam introduced democracy. - albeit not the version in practice today but one whos rules are set by of allah.
If we say islam is not compatible with democracy then how do we expalin the above.
[/QUOTE]
If a person is elected this is not democracy.
Election is a system of voting.
Democracy is system where man makes the laws.
there is difference the caliphs abided by islamic shariah they voted ffor a leader and they still implemented shariah and they no way allowed man made laws in any form including democracy.
Lot of muslims make mistake of looking at example of election of a caliph and saying democracy but you need to look more deeper and you will find it was a vote alone not a system of democracy i.e man made laws.
1eyed/ maniac..the first Caliphs were elected. You mean to say that people had a choice to elect the most generous one among many or some candidates, people elected the best thru a secrete ballet, and all matured man and woman could take part in this democratic setup of electing one Caliph. (And the system was not controlled/ hacked by some elite mumins or mullas.)
and you want us to believe blindly something that took place in a one millennium back history.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
If a person is elected this is not democracy.
Election is a system of voting.
Democracy is system where man makes the laws.
there is difference the caliphs abided by islamic shariah they voted ffor a leader and they still implemented shariah and they no way allowed man made laws in any form including democracy.
Lot of muslims make mistake of looking at example of election of a caliph and saying democracy but you need to look more deeper and you will find it was a vote alone not a system of democracy i.e man made laws.
[/QUOTE]
But do you think its possible for man to abide by laws..
Perhaps manmade..
But
based on laws taught by God and get along with each other?
None of what Muslims did after the Prophets death should be described as Islamic, or seen as such. It is one path taken by Muslims that is arguably, compatible with Islam. Islam, to the best of my knowledge, does not require a particular form of governance, although there are guidelines for the rulers.
Just as Islam prescribes rules for clothes but doesnt say if your clothes should be cotton or not. Even had the sahabaa insisted on wearing exclusively white clothes after the prophet's death, that wouldnt become a part of Islam. It would merely be clothes favoured by the sahaba.
In my opinion, Islam is not a book of principles, it is a balance that deems things islamic or unislamic. just or unjust.
Islam leaves a degree of freedom so that it can be adopted by people according to their time.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
But do you think its possible for man to abide by laws..
Perhaps manmade..
But
based on laws taught by God and get along with each other?
[/QUOTE]
No i don't because then you have 2 sets of laws and they will conflict.
you cannot have 2 systems, in a simple analogy it is like rowing a boat in 2 different directions the boat will just not go nowhere just round and round in a circle!
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ravage: *
None of what Muslims did after the Prophets death should be described as *Islamic, or seen as such. It is one path taken by Muslims that is arguably, compatible with Islam. Islam, to the best of my knowledge, does not require a particular form of governance, although there are guidelines for the rulers.
Just as Islam prescribes rules for clothes but doesnt say if your clothes should be cotton or not. Even had the sahabaa insisted on wearing exclusively white clothes after the prophet's death, that wouldnt become a part of Islam. It would merely be clothes favoured by the sahaba.
In my opinion, Islam is not a book of principles, it is a balance that deems things islamic or unislamic. just or unjust.
Islam leaves a degree of freedom so that it can be adopted by people according to their time.
[/QUOTE]
After the prophets death of course islam was implemented you had 1400 years of islamic rule, yes sometimes there was problem and some issues arose, but the system was islamic and the laws was in accordance with shariah.
Even in time of muhammad(saw) there was problems do we then say there was not islamic laws then also, of course not.
The system of islamic governance is clear and it is set, there are specific rules and regualtions covering all aspects from the social laws to the economic system and all that is in between.
The analogy of clothing you gave is correct in certain context if sahaba wore white cotton it does not mean we have to wear white cotton, only ruling we need to bear in mind is we are covered. But this only applies on the issue of clothing you cannot apply this example you gave onto the issue of ruling because these have laws and systems which are quite specific.
The problem with the Caliphate is that it is bound to turn into 'dictatorship' in which the Caliph is no longer chosen but is succeeded by his son or someone else. Secondly there is so much power in one persons hand that you can't ensure that he won't misuse it.
Suppose we have a form of Govt. in which the 'law' is unchangeable and consists of 'islamic shariah' but the Govt. ministers are elected the modern democratic way.
The shariah itself is 'nothing',its what its interpretation makes it. e-g- Sunnis say Zakat should be given to Govt. while Shias say that it is a personal duty. So what law would you enforce? I think we should give the 'Parliment' the duty to interprete the Shariah with consensus.
Abul Ala Maududi described an Islamic state that is based on Tauheed, Risalat, and Khilafat as being a democracy
In fact, the majority of the Islamist political groups in Pakistan, banded together as the MMA, maintain that the form of democratic government created by Pakistan's constitution is compliant with Islamic principles of government.
And to deflect the incoming argument that I sense some will bring, Article 227 of that constition states:
*All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions. *
The MMA position is that Pakistan's democratic system is compliant with Islam, but the country is not being run by that system as the Islamic provision of the constitution are not being enforced.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by echo: *
The problem with the Caliphate is that it is bound to turn into 'dictatorship' in which the Caliph is no longer chosen but is succeeded by his son or someone else. Secondly there is so much power in one persons hand that you can't ensure that he won't misuse it.
Suppose we have a form of Govt. in which the 'law' is unchangeable and consists of 'islamic shariah' but the Govt. ministers are elected the modern democratic way.
The shariah itself is 'nothing',its what its interpretation makes it. e-g- Sunnis say Zakat should be given to Govt. while Shias say that it is a personal duty. So what law would you enforce? I think we should give the 'Parliment' the duty to interprete the Shariah with consensus.
[/QUOTE]
Caliphate bound to turn into dictatorship you mean like the current democractic secualr system in pakistan where you have musharraff cheif dictator supreme ruler!
But back to the topic khilafah system has mechanisms which selects best candidate for post of khalifh. If the son is best candidate then ok if not then the best must be selected. In the examples where sons have taken leadership that was incorrect but the system remanined and shariah was still implemented you cannot dismiss 1400 years of ruling on the incidents where sons of rulers where elected.
As for which shariah laws will be implemented one set of laws will implemented so for example if shia have view on zakat and sunni have view on zakat the law which the current khalifh adopts will be the law for entire islamic state regardless if they sunni, shia, hanafi, malaki, hanbali etc.
The next ruler may choose to have for example the malaki view on an issue then that view will become law for entire state.
Democracy: The rule of Man versus the rule of Allah
Democracy in principle means that Man has a free hand at determining rules and laws as he pleases and he is in total control of this, ie, he is the sovereign master of himself. Hence Man can decide to enact a piece of legislation that pleases him. So, for example, in some Muslim countries (including Indonesia) they closed down nightclubs for Ramadan and re-opened them after Ramadan is over! Or there is a legislation that is now law in Bangladesh to legalise prostitution and in Pakistan it has taken them years to decide upon whether riba (usury) is forbidden! Or in the West they were having trouble deciding whether to permit homosexual relationships at sixteen or eighteen, whether to have an un-elected chamber that can accept or reject legislation and so on.
This is something that is contradictory to the very foundations of Islam and its basic beliefs, ie, that Allah is the Sovereign Master and the only one with the right of determining legislation and rules and laws as He pleases and the rest of creation including mankind, has no right except to hear and obey the orders of Allah.
Allah says, "The right of Rule is solely for Allah"(Surah Yusuf:40). Establishing clearly that He is the sole legislator.
On issue of voting in order to gain the consent of the Ummah or the representation of the Muslims as a whole in selecting the Majlis of the Ummah (in the legitimate Khilafah) is valid. Also elections as a style to elect a Khalifah, the leader of the Muslims is valid.
Democracy "sultani-e-Jumhoor" as Iqbal’s says, should be the common grounds based upon which we can reach a just Caliph. Abul Ala Maududi explains it further. The concept of democracy in a majority muslim area without the background of Tawheed, Risalet and ultimate unification of muslim ummah under one caliph would be just like western democracies, which are secular in essence but are there to protect the Judeo-Christian characteristics of their societies. EU is a prime example of this.
The concept that to become a democracy you have to be secular is just a tool of some powerful democracies to enforce their way of democracy on the whole world. Even though they themselves believe that the democratic system they have are not perfect. So their opposition to any other democratic system (say Islamic democracy) is due to other non-democratic values that they hold so dear. The case to study is the judeo-cracy in Israel, you will hardly see any opposition to that from the leaders of the modern democracies. Since the democratic system there is to protect the Jewish nation its ok, but if the same system is upheld by an muslim country then its not democracy.
So at the end of the day, the real difference would be based on if you are muslim or not.