Democracy on Trial

[Umm al_khair]

Democracy on Trial

 

 

 

By definition we find that democracy is in contradiction to Islam,

 

"Islam is Total Submission to Allah exclusively, and to follow the command of Allah with full obedience, and rejection and bara’ (disassociation) from shirk and its people."

 

And Allah (swt) said: "The only deen accepted by Allah is Islam,"

 

A persons Deen is what he/she believes in (Allah exclusively), and what he lives by (Khilafah and shari’ah) and what he dies for, (Da’wah and Jihad).

 

This means that if we are Muslims, the only deen acceptable for us is Islam, we believe in it, live by it and die for it. So there is no way for us to believe in democracy, nor live by it, nor fight to defend it.

 

 

 

DEMOCRACY

 

Democracy is defined according to those who believe in democracy (i.e. the kuffar from whom it came from); we as Muslims cannot redefine democracy and it is not an Arabic word, rather we can only take the definition and judge it on that.

 

Democracy is defined as: "The rule of the people, by the people, for the people."

 

This means that the people are the ones to legislate law for themselves, that sovereignty is for man.

 

Democracy calls for so called freedoms,

 

- The freedom of Religion

 

Freedom to worship whatever and whoever they wish, whether one god or many gods; whether they worship themselves, their desires, their money or their private parts.

 

- The Freedom of Ownership

 

Freedom to own whatever and however they like, whether selling his body or his wife’s body it doesn’t matter because he is free.

 

- Personal Freedom

 

To be free to eat, speak, wear and behave the way he likes etc.

 

- Freedom of _Expression

 

Freedom to say what you like, to lie how you like, to slander, to insult, to swear, to curse however you like.

 

However, this will inevitably causes chaos; so they use this freedom to vote for someone to make law and order. In parliament, they do not eat ice cream, they legislate law e.g. to prohibit swearing in public; but instead permitting swearing in a ‘legal’ way, in films, books, media, ‘joking’ etc.

 

So we have understood that the people vote to decide what they think is the best law, then they count the votes and take the majority opinion, there is always confusion and disagreement, there is no black and white and is always grey areas. i.e. It is entirely based on compromise.

 

 

 

DEMOCRACY IN ISLAM

 

Allah (swt) said: "We sent to you this book, as a guidance confirming the previous books, and abrogating all the previous books, (you must) Rule and judge between them by all of whatever Allah revealed, and do not follow their desires instead of what Allah sent to you, for every nabi, we sent Shari’ah and a way of Life." [EMQ 5: 14]

 

From this verse alone, we see that Democracy is fundamentally contradictory to Islam, and is irreconcilably against the command of Allah. Allah ordered us to implement only and all of His (swt) commands and prohibitions, to rule and judge by whatever he revealed and to reject any and all opinions that the people may have, whether minority or majority.Allah (swt) said:"Do people want to follow the law of jahiliyyah (ignorance)? Who is a better legislator than Allah? If you believe." [EMQ 5: 50]

 

There is no doubt that Allah (swt), the one who created us and created the universe and everything in it, He is the best to know us and what is best for us. He (swt) is the best to decide what is right and wrong and we have no right to question him. Only the fool would leave His (swt) wisdom and guidance for our own ignorance and conjecture. Allah (swt) said: "legislation is only for Allah. " [EMQ 12: 40]

 

The one who legislates we call him, "rabb" or "ilah", so if we say "there is no ilah except Allah" we must take Allah alone as ilah exclusively, otherwise we commit shirk and we will become kaafir (a disbeliever). Allah (swt) said: "Do you see the one who claims he believes in what has been revealed to you (Muhammad) and what has been revealed before you, and yet he arbitrated to taghout (other than Allah)." [EMQ 4: 60]

 

It is impossible for us to refer to any law other that of Allah, in any dispute we must return to Allah and his laws for arbitration. We can never believe in Allah as Al Hakam (legislator) exclusively and then refer to man-made law for arbitration, Allah (swt) said: "There is no compulsion in the deen, the truth is distinguished from the falsehood, whosoever rejects taghout and then believes in Allah, they have grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break …" [EMQ 2: 256]

 

Allah (swt) informed us that the first pillar of Tawheed is "…whosoever rejects taghout…"

 

And the second pillar "…and then believes in Allah…" [EMQ 2:256]

 

This means that we must stay away from and reject all that is worshipped, followed or obeyed instead of Allah (swt), whether Satan, human, idols, law and order or a ruler, whether the law of the UK or the law of the UN; we must reject it, believe it is falsehood, hate and hold animosity towards it and call it disbelief or disbelievers. Allah (swt) said: "It is not fitting for the believing men or the believing women, when Allah and His messenger decide a matter, that they should have any choice in the matter, and whosoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, they are in clear misguidance." [33:36]

 

When Allah (swt) uses ‘clear misguidance’ in this and other ayat, it means Shirk (polytheism). So it is impossible for us to vote over what is right or wrong, or what is lawful or unlawful as this has already been decided by Allah (swt), and it is impossible for us to have a choice after that.

 

In the time of the Prophet (saw), the jews used to come and ask the muslims, "who gives life?" They said "Allah", they asked, "who takes life?" the Muslims said "Allah" … then they said "who takes the life of the sheep when you slaughter?" the Muslims said "it is Allah," then they asked "who takes the life when the sheep dies by itself?" the Muslims said "Allah," then they asked "how do you eat what Allah kills with your metal knife, but you do not eat what Allah kills with His golden knife?" So Allah revealed the Ayah: "Do not eat what has not been mentioned on it the name of Allah, that is sin, but the shaytan inspire their own people to debate with you the matter, if you obey them you become Mushrik." [EMQ An’am 21]

 

So there is no room for discussion or preference in the law of Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Allah is the one who legislates and judges, and nobody dares to comment on it" [EMQ Ra’d: 41]

 

So there is no possibility of voting to decide law and order as the verdict is always with Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Whatever it occurs that you have a problem, the verdict is for Allah," [EMQ Shura: 10]

 

Allah (swt) said:"They take their priests and rabbis as lords instead of Allah,"

 

Hatib bin Uday used to be from the Ahl Al Kitab, he said: "I came to the Prophet (saw) and at that time I had a gold cross on my neck, the messengers said "take this idol from your neck" and he recited the ayah … (above), I said; "how do we do so?" he said: "didn’t they forbid what Allah permits, and you obeyed them, and permit what Allah forbids and you take it?" I said: "yes" he said: "that is the way you used to worship them.""

 

May Allah (swt) protect us from falling into the same hole as the Jews and Christians, who left Allah to follow their own desires, who twist and change the word of Allah to please eachother, even to legislate homosexuality after Allah prohibited it. Verily Democracy is a religion of disbelief; anybody who believes in it is a disbeliever, anybody who lives by and obeys its man-made law is Mushrik as he obeys and arbitrates to taghout, even though Allah (swt) ordered him to reject it, and anybody who fights to defend it, and kills and bombs others to force them into it and dies for the its sake can never die except as a kaafir, and will be punished after that forever and ever in the hellfire.

 

The only solution is to reject this taghout (that which is worshipped, followed or obeyed instead of Allah) and to worship Allah (swt) exclusively, to leave man-made law and to embrace Islam, live by Islam and die for the sake of Allah, gaining paradise in the hereafter forever and ever.

 

BY SHAYKH ABU MUHAMMAD AL-MAQDISI

[Khayr]

So there is no room for discussion or preference in the law of Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Allah is the one who legislates and judges, and nobody dares to comment on it" [EMQ Ra’d: 41]

 

So there is no possibility of voting to decide law and order as the verdict is always with Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Whatever it occurs that you have a problem, the verdict is for Allah," [EMQ Shura: 10]

[Caano Geel]

ok so do u guys wanna discuss this or do you wanna want to say what u believe and people to agree with you?

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Caano Geel:

ok so do u guys wanna discuss this or do you wanna want to say what u believe and people to agree with you?

I don't know if this is a Cynical QUESTION or a Sarcastic REMARK or a RHETORICAL question....

 

What was in the above quoted writing that the sister posted is what we DISCUSS ALMOST EVERY TIME an Issue is EXAMINED from an Islamic point of view. Clash of Principles-Word of GOD/Revelation v. Popular SENTIMENT and Moral Relativism.

[Caano Geel]

Khyr, the title says democracy on trail. not the clash of principles-Word of god/revelation v. popular sentiment and moral relativism.

 

which is why i asked whether you wanted to discuss the points raised or for them to be taken as is and accepted.

 

--- anyways i told ya before i wont bring up relativism around the muslims in the us

[Pi]

Caano, SHEEKH BUM BUM, doenst like to discuss stuff. You know why? Its sentimental to discuss subjects. Only Moral relativists do that. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[xiinfaniin]

It’s quite paradoxical to propagate this misinformation about democracy as an incompatible system of governance with Islam when indeed it has produced the only governments that can truly claim to reflect the political sentiments and cultural values of its people. It has only been weeks since Hamas made history with its landslide victory in the Palestinian elections. They gained through democracy what they failed to attain through arms. Democracy rewarded Hamas with legitimacy both in the eyes of the outside world and that of Palestinian people. The fiery president of Iran is another example of the product of democratic process. One could find few other examples where participatory democracy has delivered political victories to the Muslim masses. A rare occurrence in these days, I may add, when the norm of conducting politics in the wider Muslim world is either under the darkness of absolute monarchy or that of a brutal dictatorial regime.

 

Furthermore, it’s elementary and uncomplicated political fact that the output of democratic process is directly proportional to the input of the voters. By logical extension if the Muslim populace is allowed to vote it would only elect a government that reflects their values, and hence the mosque, as it were, would be moored to the state rather than detached from it. If the system proved to be advantageous to Muslims, as I argue it did, on what bases would we object it? If we found religious justifications for the monarchies that existed and continue to exist in the Muslim world, as I argue we did, can we find one for democracy on the basis of common good? Do the benefits of democratic system outweigh its mischief? Above all, is there any limitation as to what form (not its function) Islamic government could take?

 

I personally think that the form of Islamic government is undefined, and there’s room for us to shape it. We know the ultimate goal of any Islamic government is to please Allah, and its function is to represent Him to implement His laws, and prevent mischief in His land. But tell me, (any one?), if you mean to debate (learn or benefit) what excludes democracy to be a legitimate vehicle to serve that purpose? I say it is. Its benefits outweigh whatever harm it could cause. It could be justified (religiously) on the basis of common good. It’s a mature and tested method of governance. And the fears of naysayers about it are unfounded. Let the people vote and the majority of this Ummah will never go astray, IA.

 

 

So I, the good Xiin, found democracy not guilty, and all the charges are thusly dismissed without prejudice.

[Kashafa]

^^ I don't think anyone can object to the type of democratic governance you're arguing for, yaa Xiin. There's only one problem: it's imaginery

 

The Democracy we're either speaking for or against is the one known, practiced, and invented in the West. It's the Democracy adopted disastrously by failed Islamic states: Turkey, Egypt, Algeria. That's the kind of democracy that's on trial, and which I say is incompatible with Islam.

 

You mention political 'victories' in Iran and Palestine. Two anomalies that won't last. Same thing happened in Algeria in '92 when the Islamist party won, word came from above: crush'em. And the military, ever the obedient servant of it's masters, did just that. Forgot about the West, the secular forces in the Muslim world won't allow an Sharia-implementing goverment to come to power, democratic elections or not. Hamas is already back-pedaling, saying Sharia is not on it's political agenda.

 

Let the people vote and the majority of this Ummah will never go astray, IA.

Theoretically speaking, in a true democracy in the Muslim world, the people and their elected representatives could vote to, say, allow 'civil unions'(California), or legalise prostitution(Nevada), or(and this is a stretch but completely plausible) vote to usher Islam into the 21st century by throwing out all the 'harsh' parts and give it a fatwa-based makeover. See where this slippery slope can lead us ?

 

Like it or not, when you embrace democracy, you're also embracing the values and norms of the Western world for the past 200 years. Just ask any Turkish sister who can't attend university because somehow that fabric on her head is a threat to the finest system of governance mankind has known.

 

What should we do ? Just the opposite. Instead of importing democracy wholesale, Extract the mechanisms that have made the West the powerhouse it is and configure it so that it's subservient and in line with the Kitaab and Sunnah.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Kashafa:

^^ I don't think anyone can object to the type of democratic governance you're arguing for, yaa Xiin. There's only one problem: it's imaginery

 

The Democracy we're either speaking for or against is the one known, practiced, and invented in the West. It's the Democracy adopted disastrously by failed Islamic states: Turkey, Egypt, Algeria. That's the kind of democracy that's on trial, and which I say is incompatible with Islam.

 

You mention political 'victories' in Iran and Palestine. Two anomalies that won't last. Same thing happened in Algeria in '92 when the Islamist party won, word came from above: crush'em. And the military, ever the obedient servant of it's masters, did just that. Forgot about the West, the secular forces in the Muslim world won't allow an Sharia-implementing goverment to come to power, democratic elections or not. Hamas is already back-pedaling, saying Sharia is not on it's political agenda.

 

quote:

---

Let the people vote and the majority of this Ummah will never go astray, IA.

Theoretically speaking, in a true democracy in the Muslim world, the people and their elected representatives could vote to, say, allow 'civil unions'(California), or legalise prostitution(Nevada), or(and this is a stretch but completely plausible) vote to usher Islam into the 21st century by throwing out all the 'harsh' parts and give it a fatwa-based makeover. See where this slippery slope can lead us ?

 

Like it or not, when you embrace democracy, you're also embracing the values and norms of the Western world for the past 200 years.

Just ask any Turkish sister who can't attend university because somehow that fabric on her head is a threat to the finest system of governance mankind has known.

 

What should we do ?

Just the opposite. Instead of importing democracy wholesale, Extract the mechanisms that have made the West the powerhouse it is and configure it so that it's subservient and in line with the Kitaab and Sunnah.

[xiinfaniin]

Good points there, good Kashafa, but weli far baa ii taagan. I will come back Friday night, IA.

[Kashafa]

Thanks for the contradiction alert, Khayrka, but try reading again with special emphasis on these words: embrace, extract , mechanism, configure , subservient.

[Yeniceri]

So there is no room for discussion or preference in the law of Allah (swt), Allah (swt) said: "Allah is the one who legislates and judges, and nobody dares to comment on it" [EMQ Ra’d: 41]

I suppose this is the fundamental tenet of Islam that's not compatible with the "democracy" envisioned by Western powers. Indeed, the law of Allah SWT must be supreme to that of mankind - when its not, immoral debates, such as the "homosexuality in the priesthood" debate that's currently burning within the Roman Catholic faith, will become formulaic and acceptable throughout the world. If this is what Western-style "democracy" brings, then its most certainly not compatible with the teachings of Islam.

[Mr.Faarax]

As I understand, I am gonna put it in a simple terms for me and all the people that like simple explanations.

 

Democracy today (western)

 

People vote - to choose who will lead

them.wether something is right or

wrong or wether to have it legal or

illegal. The law is unfinished, it

is up to the people to make it

however the majority wants it.

System - MAJORITY RULE!

 

Democracy that you talk about (islam)

 

People vote- to choose who will lead them, But

not what is right or wrong or legal v.s

illegal because allah and prophet s.c.w

made it clear in the quran and sunnah.

The law is written finished complete.

SYSTEM - ALLAH RULE

 

I get it now

[Caano Geel]

kashafa, i think its too easy to say democracy in muslim nations. It would a strench and most cases in the extreme to call the mechanims in place those countries democracies. At best, they coulbe described existing in the netherland beween autocracies and cleptocracies.

 

The point in a democarcy is that there isnt things to import, for example its not about mechanisms to control corruption. But a mentality that regulates it.

 

The basic tenant is simple. Everyone is corrupt given the opportunity - and even if you could guarantee that most people arn't corrupt, some corrupt people will get through, so how can we manage the influence they may have and ---> in comes the electoral process and u get rid of them at the next opportunity.

 

As Xiin said 'output of democratic process is directly proportional to the input of the voters' This is obviously the ideal system where people care, participate and good and fair information.

 

Anyhow the point is that is that it works because in its pure form it guarantees nothing and reacts purely to the feedback of its participants. So those that want to function in it have to uphold the values of the society they representy, more or less continuesly.

 

I think u're talking about is morality and this should be very different to a poltical process. It should not function by giving people no choice but by convincing the people that it is the best choice.

[xiinfaniin]

Kashafow, the democracy that I am arguing for is not an imaginary thing. It’s, as I said, a tested and mature system of governance that’s ready for our picking. Unless you get destructed by the wrong sneezes, so to speak, or the smell of its western scent dilutes your sense of judgment, democracy, when practiced by faithful Muslims, is analogous to an organized Shuura. It facilitates direct contribution of Muslim masses to the affairs of the Ummah. It’s a perfect fit for our politically intensive society, as Muslims are, and provides a suitable framework for them to participate in the system, and channel and express their sentiments in a more constructive manner. It has all the functionalities to remedy our political ills, and when the right people vote democracy has been known to produce political wonders, saaxiib. I have already cited examples of what happens when Muslim populace vote, and, though you’ve attempted to impeach it, the result of their vote speaks for it self. Whether it’s an ‘anomaly that won’t last’ or an early breeze of political progress remains to be seen, but as far as I can tell the adoption of this system is underway in the Muslim world, and deservedly so, I say.

 

You see good Kashafa, that democracy is a western invention is not the point of moot here. Its origins bear no significance for our discussion as adopting, and incorporating useful administrative tools are encouraged by our faith. And I am sure you would agree that knowledge has no boundaries and knows no race. What is relevant to this discussion is whether democracy can be incorporated and utilized in a manner that benefits us. I think it can be, and should be. As I said before democracy is not a standalone system. It reflects the values and cultures of those who implement it. It hardly contradicts the beliefs of its voters, even when practiced in the west. When introduced to the Muslim world the result has always been good despite obstructions exacted by the imperial forces. The problem in Algeria was not, as you know, that of a system nor was it a failure of democracy, rather the subversion, good Kashafa, came from above. Democracy just worked fine for us or at least the early results looked good for us. It was the west--when realized it swum in a swollen river--that aborted the democratic process and halted the wheels of progress in that country. Turkey is another example where the subversion was exacted from without, and you know how Arbakaan (former prime minister) was denied from his democratic victory. Add that the fact that Turkey has a unique political narrative and historical account in the modern Muslim nations. So confuse not, good Kashafa, the willful sabotages of imperial forces with that of the suitability of democracy and its compatibility with the principles of Islam.

 

Having said all of that, I still agree with your caution about democracy and making sure that Islam remains the guiding principle in our life, private or civic. As Digaale aptly summarized the chief difference between the west and Islam is the fact that Islam concedes the role of legislating to Allah, while the west denies Him that function. It’s a major component of our creed that the laws of Allah can’t be subjected to alteration. The fact that we may vote and participate in a democratic system won’t change our core belief that Allah’s laws are superior to ours, and they shall never be contradicted. The notion that Muslims could, in theory, overwhelmingly vote to retire Shariica laws is not plausible to me. It flies in the face of that prophetic saying that informs Muslim majority will never agree on a clear deviation from the right path. We must, nevertheless, ensure that democracy should be configured and tweaked to our liking. I am for customizing democracy so it can effectively meet our political needs. In the end, most of its symbols---the voting, the checks and balances, and the limited presidential terms in office---will be retained, I predict.

 

So as you can see the notion that we are playing with live ammunition if we adopt democracy and our basic beliefs are threatened is a fear generated by the vapors of unimaginative mind. To not see the potential contribution that a democratic process could have is a clear lack of the power of positive thinking.

 

P.S: It had me thinking why some Muslim scholars are uneasy about democracy while showering praises on the Gulf Monarchies in the name of stability. Misinformaion?