I am wondering for quite a few days about the leadership in the Umma. How are we supposed to select our leaders as it’s not mentioned in the Quran?
I also would like to know that is there a place for democracy in Islam? Also, what was the way Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) prescribed to choose our leasders and in that case, how was Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) selected?
I’ll really appreciate everyone’s insight and I’m looking keenly for the responses. Thanks
I am wondering for quite a few days about the leadership in the Umma. How are we supposed to select our leaders as it's not mentioned in the Quran?
I also would like to know that is there a place for democracy in Islam? Also, what was the way Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) prescribed to choose our leasders and in that case, how was Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) selected?
I'll really appreciate everyone's insight and I'm looking keenly for the responses. Thanks
Umer
My dear brother, if read Holy Quran, Allah is the one who select Guide and master for Muslim Umma, from 124000/- Est Prophets are directly selected by Almight Allah, there is not even a single evidence where prophet or his vizier is select during election or common sensus of poeple.. Therefore please check the thread of BASIC CONFLICT ..... for further information..
ALLAH HAFIZ
^
LOL @ lottery.. haha
I think what he meant was the 'Current' way of democracy...
During the time of Caliphates, they did have democracy via the 'Shura' System. In such democracy, you just dun take every aira ghaira nathu khaira to decide for a thief will always elect a thief...
Anyone who is eligible to be a witness in the court of law is a reliable person to take the advice on such...
Maududi wrote a pretty good article on this, but I don't have the time to type it, but the gist of it is that Khilafat rests on the shoulder of every adult muslim male and female and that they choose to invest one man with their power, ie choose a khalif through election.
Maududi theorised about Islamic democracy, where people elect their rulers for the purpose of ruling by Islam, interpreting and applying its laws. It differs from western democracy because the an Islamic democracy is not allow to pass legislation that contradicts Islam.
maddie, sure, so the only difference between democracy and khilafat is that in a khliafat system the elected representatives can not passs legislation counter to religious rulings.
while this presents a little bit of challenge because teh religious rulings on many things may be disputed due to sect or school of thought.
But for the most part it will not have a huge impact on the minutia like healthcare spending, agricultural development, etc etc.
so when people go around screaming that democracy is unislamic, that is incorrect. People still have a right to choose the representatives, and those people have to work in the interest of the people, and have limits based on religious rulings, similar to limits that are placed based on constitution in democracies (yes I understand that constitution can be changed but I am kinda using this to illustrate a point)
the biggest challenge that I see is how you can figure out one set of these untouchable laws when diff schools of thought do not agree on some of them. does one go with the school of thought that the majority follows then? and in such a case an islamic-democracy/khilafah would be different in pakistan than in Iran than in Saudi Arabia right ( yes I know the one khilafah concept, but since that is not on the hoirizon it will have to be at a country level)
Which is pretty much why Maududi’s own party, the JI, has always stuck by Pakistan’s 1973 constitution (bar their sell-out to Zia). The JI’s position is that the 1973 constitution is a valid basis for an Islamic government, but that successive governments have ignored the Islamic provisions in the constitution.
I think its a pretty good way to initiate a discussion. Though this simplistic explanation, while it works for Jamaa't-e-Islami and the limited context of a politcal party in one country (i.e. Pakistan), does not really explain that in Islam, the institution of Khalifat is unique because the Khalifa is not only the Administrative head of government but also the spiritual guide to the Islamic Ummah. At least that is what we see as example from the first four Khullafa. So, by definition, the Masjid and the state are closely bonded in Islam.
Now, whether in the present day and age, we (the ummah) has the ability or the patience to select/elect/shura someone who can fit the bill completely remains a big question mark.
they can do us all a service by countering the views of their brethren who claim that democracy is unislamic, I mean afterall if they will speak up against others why not against groups like HT, or did they and I just missed it?
Maududi theorised about Islamic democracy, where people elect their rulers for the purpose of ruling by Islam, interpreting and applying its laws. It differs from western democracy because the an Islamic democracy is not allow to pass legislation that contradicts Islam.
Nice thread Umer ....
Democracy is absolutely compatible with Islam. However as stated, legislation is different. Even in western democracy their legislation cannot violate the constitution or certain bills or charters. So everyone in their democratic system abides by some rules and regulations, which they make immutable. For Islamic countries with a democracy the answer is simple Quran and Hadith should not be violated during legislation.
Now, can you please explain how can democracy be Islamic, when Allah says...
The judgement is for Allah alone
Surah Al Anaam Verse 57
Allah will choose our leaders? Within the context of choosing leaders, I think what is democratic is crystal clear - the people decide amongst themselves who will lead; leadership is not a function of hereditary right, or tribal right, etc.
People implement systems, so in ALL cases, it is really the rule of the people...let's not get into semantic games over this...
The question is, can people arbitrarily change laws regardless of a set of core principles that can't be violated...I don't know of a single system of governance that can claim that.
People implement systems, so in ALL cases, it is really the rule of the people...let's not get into semantic games over this...
*The question is, can people arbitrarily change laws regardless of a set of core principles that can't be violated...I don't know of a single system of governance that can claim that. *
Right, exactly what I said also. I always see Mullahs screaming evil when they hear about democracy because they don't understand the concept of processes and principles.