Tawhid: Faith in the Unity of God

[Abu-Salman]

There are both theoritical and practical incongruities in the "Democracy" concept, from a purely Islamic point of view, if we brush aside concerns advanced by proponents of other systems such as pure "Meritocracy", a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability.

 

Closer to Western realities, "Ploutocracy" (power for the better-off or producers), is epitomized by the obscene financial requirements of US campaigns or a litany of highly controversial legislations (an euphemism indeed!), in terms of Public Health or Environment, in the USA (not even mentioning the plight of minorities, ever-rising, intolerable local inequalities, promotion of a most pernicious World Trade system, recurrent opposition to global access to generic drugs & essential medicines etc).

 

Thus, Islamic Governance includes the immense advantages of "meritocracy" without its feared excesses and subjectivity, since Ulamas are required to regulate the Ummah's internal or external affairs according solely to their degree of Cilm or Islamic learning as well as Taqwa or Piety (siyaasa or Public Affairs management is, after all, a mere portion of Fiqh or Islamic Jurisprudence).

 

They are to be obeyed because (as long as) their commands are firmly established on Aayahs or authentic Ahaadiths, with Ijmaa' or consensus of Ulamas being another foundation of Islamic Usool Al-Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence, ie Foundations of Islamic Law), in marked contrast with Democracy, whereby laymen legislate and interpret an artificially sanctified constitution in their Parliamentary cult.

 

In that light, Democracy is but a modern version of Shirk or idolatry, whose worship could place one beyond the fold of Islam, or unmitigated submission to Allah and his Shariah, who alone deserves to be glorified, loved and obeyed without any reservation whatsoever (a quintessential condition of one's Islam or surrender to him).

 

Simultaneously, in practical terms, the underlying philosophy of Democracy, ie "one man-one vote", is here totally disqulified as clearly contravening to Islamic Principles, not least that of the preeminence of Cilm or Islamic Knowledge, so abundantly stressed in the Qur'aan.

 

In other words, we have no choice but to follow our most learned and pious, whatever their origin, race or socio-economic condition ( emancipated slaves, many of them blacks, were the Prophet's companions, Ulamas or Governors of such a prestigious location as Holy Macca).

 

Of course, the Qur'aan also stress "As-Shuura" or consultation, but this is again within well-delimited confines; while Medical or Military Experts may advise the Ulamas in precise matters (eg: toxicology or defence technology), this hardly implies that a mother struggling to even read adequately the Qur'aan should be automatically consulted on the same level simply bacause she happened to be born locally, let alone being pushed to "campaign", since it is a well-known Sunnah that authority was conferred to those that never asked for it in the first place!

 

With much of the previous clarifications being basic Islamic knowledge as well as pure common sense, is it not therefore akin to incoherence, if not sheer hypocrisy, to question or seek to rewrite essential components of our Aqeedah (Islamic Creed), when one hardly believes in it, to begin with?

[Naden]

You haven’t substantiated your association of democracy with shirk, walaal. And I think you should be careful mixing concepts and ideas. The Ayah that you often recite (wala yushrik fi xukmihi…And he does not share in his rule/wisdom/commandments) does not relate directly to politics as it is seen in a society. The xukm of God does not mean the presidency of a nation or the head of a tribe.

 

There are direct relations between certain axkam of God (death penalty, inheritance) and their adherents. But a great many are not in the public sphere. And we are talking about a public, shared, sphere here and its management and not the strength of an individual’s adherence to Islam.

 

Unless someone claims to be hearing God’s instructions (like Moses), the only system you can have is run entirely by fallible people. It seems as though we don’t differ on the actual guidance of the Quran in civil/legal affairs but we differ on who decides the human affairs that are in the murky areas or are completely untouched.

 

And I think we are both aware of the word ‘religion’ and its wide understanding. Deen and religion, despite their differences in translation, are understood to mean a faith embraced by some. I don’t think that is a point of contention here.

 

People can and do govern themselves. The democratic process is but a tool in this governance. Despite the numerous legislative challenges in multi-religious societies, the principles upon which laws are based depend largely on a society’s worldview/religion/deen. The failures that are sighted in the democratic process are often human failures of greed, power-mongering, and interest protection. These are responsible for sham democracies that are really corporatocracies like the one in the US. And I believe they would exist in the most ardent theocracy or the Islamic version of an ecclesiocracy.

 

If you reread my post, you’ll see that I thought points 2-4 lacked substance and these are partially my reasons for thinking so:

 

Point #2: Supporting something with millions/billions of dollars does not make it a religion to be embraced. Public education, universal healthcare, research and a myriad of human endeavours are costly and have their staunch supporters. These endeavours are no more a religion than democracy is, despite its numerous failings.

 

Point #3: Your third point states that ‘people have no power’. I don’t understand what you mean by this. What power are you referring to? If it is the power to create the heavens and earth, then no. If it is the power to mete justice, move wealth, build civilizations, destroy the other, among a myriad of other things, then people do have power.

 

Point #4: Your final point of democracy being ‘archaic’: the ayah you’ve referenced does not apply. The names/titles that are invoked are those of idols that were worshipped by the non-believers. I cannot prove that it is not a ‘false notion’; the burden of proof is on you who made the claim.

 

I understand that you’ve made a sweeping, dramatic proclamation, Nur, but you will need strong evidence to justify your association of democracy with shirk, the most grave of charge.

 

And you have not stated your reasoning behind the placement of quotes around the word ‘muslim’.

[Nur]

Naden sis.

 

You write:

 

"You haven’t substantiated your association of democracy with shirk, walaal. And I think you should be careful mixing concepts and ideas. The Ayah that you often recite (wala yushrik fi xukmihi…And he does not share in his rule/wisdom/commandments) does not relate directly to politics as it is seen in a society. The xukm of God does not mean the presidency of a nation or the head of a tribe"

 

 

Naden.

 

Xukum in Arabic means judgment, aka Sharia jurisprudence.

 

For example;

 

1. Economic : Allah made An Economic Xukum That Ribaa, aka Usury/interest is forbidden as a means of financial transaction in Isalm, and another Financial Xukum that we should pay a portion of our yearly income (a zakat ) to the welfare of the poor.

 

2. Socially: Allah made Xukum that Extra-marital relationships are prohibited, or the Xukum that a woman may not marry without consent of her (Waliyy) parent, brother etc.

 

Politics is the human activity that decides on such issues as how to collect and how to spend public wealth, as well as what societal norms should be permissible in a sciety. Politics is also the art of comprmising conflicting human interests in a Democracy. In a Democracy, politics serves the vehicle for bringing the interest of the majority to the front burner, and the minority suffers. Politics, hence is not concerned with absolute Justice, nor values, since people in a Democracy share no values, but share interests.

 

Democracy is the flip side of Sovereignty, it gives absolute power to the people to make lawful anything the majority sees fit. In a Democracy, if the majority of people want to legislate homesexuality as acceptable, it becomes a Law, when it becomes a Law, its enforced by the executive Branch of Government, ( Presidency), the President in a Democracy represents the real Sovereign which are the People who have elected Him, thus, A President plays the role of A Sovereign on behalf of John Q. Public. Being a Sovereign means, to be of the highest authority that no one except John Q. Public can override.

 

If the people are the Sovereign in a Democracy then, and if Allah says in Quraan that He does not share his Edicts and Xukum with His creatures, isnt that sufficient to show that in a Democracy in which people claim to be the masters of their fate to legislate, (making halal and haram anything), doesnt that show a conflict between man and his maker? Can we be Muslims, (meaning those who surrender to their maker), if we are in contempt of his Xukum on our lives, ( aka Sharia), or if we discard his Sovereign Laws altogether substituting it with secular laws imported from other nations, or by legislating our own laws as we see fit, acting totally independent of His Xukum?

 

To make it even more clearer, please read The Hadeeth again, you seem to be avoiding to discuss the merits of the following Hadeeth:

 

The Hadeeth:

 

---- Adi Ibn Hatim ( Christian convert) said: "I came to the Messenger of Allah wearing on my neck a golden cross, the (Messenger of Allah) said to me, " O Adi, take off this Idol from your neck", then I took it off, and as he read the verse in Surah Baraa'ah, "They ( Christians and Jews) have made their Priests and Rabbis, Lords other than Allah" upon hearing that verse, I said, " O Messenger of Allah, we ( Christians) do not worship them ( our Priests), He ( the Messenger of Allah) said " (Dont they legislate contrary to what Allah has legislated), making forbidden what Allah permitted, and making permitted what Allah forbade, and you ( Christians) follow them in that?" I said " Yes", ( the Messneger of Allah) said:" That is how you worship them ( your Priests and Rabbis) (instead of Allah). Which is SHIRK!

 

 

Naden Sis

 

That Hadeth alone is sufficient to show the intimate connection between Shirk and Democracy.

I hope that the above attempt of mine answers your question.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

1. I have shown the relationship between Shirk and Democracy on one hand, and the relationship of politics to Xukum in a Muslim Society on the other. We said that Democracy is flip side of Sovereignty, and Sovereignty means absolute authority of the majority of people in a Democracy. Absolute authority belongs to Allah alone, recognizing this authority to belong to any creature is Shirk.

 

2. Politically, The Legislative branch makes laws that conflict with the Sharia, Allah's Sovereign Law. This conflict is SHIRK, because there should be a single Sovereignty and a single authority for legislation, all based on the wish of the Sovereign, in Islam, Allah is the only Sovereign.

 

Nur

[Nur]

Naden sis

 

Where in Kurtunwaarrey are you? I am waiting for your response since last October?

 

Nur

[Naden]

Nur walaal, how have you been? I will reread your post and let you know although I worry that we have a fundamental disagreement over the basics.

[Nur]

I am around my dear sis, Ramadan kareem to you! I am back again these days, but as a bread winner when I have a heavy load of work, I disappear, and then reappear to shake the discussions on SOL Islam page.

 

You write:

 

although I worry that we have a fundamental disagreement over the basics.

 

 

Can you list these fundamentals so we can crack their mysteries, don't worry sis, inshAllah we will narrow the gap, I am pretty sure with if both of us are seeking happiness in this life and next, if on that much of basics we agree, then there is nothing to worry about, I'll have you smiling in no time.

 

 

Nur