Democracy on Trial

[juba]

These hadiths/fatwa are contrary to what i thought because If you can't go agianst your ruler no matter how oppresive, Islam is DEFINITELY not compatible with democracy:

 

The Prophet said: ‘‘There are three things towards which the heart of a Muslim never shows hatred or rancour: giving obedience to the rulers (wulaatul-umoor)...."

 

So Aboo Bakrah said: Be silent, I heard the Messenger say: “Whosoever holds contempt for the ruler of Allaah upon the earth, then Allaah will hold contempt for him.†This is an authentic hadeeth related by at-Tirmidhee (no. 1812).

 

I have already informed you earlier that it is not permissible to revolt against the ruler, except under two conditions: Firstly: the presence of clear disbelief (kufr) from him about which you have a proof from Allaah. Secondly: the power and ability to remove the ruler without bringing about a greater evil. And without these two conditions, it is not permissible. (ibn baaz fatwa)

 

fatwa

[juba]

These hadiths/fatwa are contrary to what i thought because If you can't go agianst your ruler no matter how oppresive, Islam is DEFINITELY not compatible with democracy:

 

The Prophet said: ‘‘There are three things towards which the heart of a Muslim never shows hatred or rancour: giving obedience to the rulers (wulaatul-umoor)...."

 

So Aboo Bakrah said: Be silent, I heard the Messenger say: “Whosoever holds contempt for the ruler of Allaah upon the earth, then Allaah will hold contempt for him.†This is an authentic hadeeth related by at-Tirmidhee (no. 1812).

 

"I have already informed you earlier that it is not permissible to revolt against the ruler, except under two conditions: Firstly: the presence of clear disbelief (kufr) from him about which you have a proof from Allaah. Secondly: the power and ability to remove the ruler without bringing about a greater evil. And without these two conditions, it is not permissible. (ibn baaz fatwa)"

 

fatwa [/qb]

[Xoogsade]

Very beautiful informative articles and opinions.

 

 

I am thinking though, Do we read the hadith above in Juba's post within "context" and question the said ruler's qualifications or we just have to obey him regardless of what he does or who he is?

 

Many human beings are destined to hell or to heaven based on their chosen conduct and paths, therefore, What if I do not choose to obey when I can disobey a man who doesn't deserve to be obeyed? Wouldn't I be accountable in obeying him when he is wrong and be punished for misusing my free will? Does islam put on me the burden of ignoring my conscience and obey just about anyone who claims a position of leadership when they don't deserve to be obeyed? Is there not a hadith that says you can not obey the created in disobedience to the creator himself?

 

Also, how do the muslims reclaim their dignity and bring about change, a change that gives them freedom of religious practice where non exists and making the best of their world? In certain islamic countries, the leader opposes the practice of islam and brands it an innovation. Many muslims are persecuted for just following the Quran and the teachings of the prophet, The hadith quoted above, if not read in context, would have you obey any leader.

 

We have to question the validity of certain points of view and not be frightened into accepting it if it doesn't make sense.

[Blessed]

^I agree, obedience should only be on what is halaal and good.

 

Cara

 

You'll find the answers to those questions and more here.

[Khalaf]

Wrong posting. We should be able to delete too.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

 

Kheyr, I see no confusion in that hadith. It clearly states that Muslims, the people and their learned scholars, will not agree on a clear deviation. Though stability is very important it should not be used to preserve and justify the rule of monarchy. Islam does not endorse monarchy as it contradicts the concept of Shuura. Though there are concerns about democracy(like Kashafa eloquently stated) but I see no reason for us to be uneasy about a system that provides the means to vote, a platform to debate, and a framework to check and balance the excess of human greed. If the Saudis vote to day do you have any doubt that the outcome will be a fairer and more representative government that not only reflects Islamic values and upholds our principles but also has the legitimacy and confidence of Saudis?

Kheyr, I see no confusion in that hadith. It clearly states that Muslims, the people and their learned scholars, will not agree on a clear deviation

Salams

 

On the authority of Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), who said: "Verily my Ummah would not agree (or he said the Ummah of Muhammad) would not agree upon error and Allah's hand is over the group (JAMMAH) and whoever dissents from them (leaves the Jammah) departs to Hell." Reported by Imam al-Tirmidhi and Al-Hakim Nisabouri

 

• Imam al-Azizi (d. 1070/1660; Rahimahullah) quoted Imam al-Munawi's (d. 1031/1622; Rahimahullah) commentary to the last Hadith in his al-Siraj al-munir sharh al-Jami al-saghir (3.449), as follows:- Allah's hand is over the group

   

  (al-Azizi): Munawi says, "Meaning his protection and preservation of them, signifying that the collectivity of the people of Islam are in Allah's fold, so be also in Allah's shelter, in the midst of them, and do not separate yourselves from them." The rest of the Hadith, according to the one who first recorded it (Tirmidhi), is:-

   

  and whoever descents from them departs to hell.

  Meaning that whoever diverges from the overwhelming majority concerning what is lawful or unlawful and on which the Community does not differ has slipped off the path of guidance and this will lead him to hell."

• Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying:

  "Follow the great mass (as-Sawad al-Azam) for he who kept himself away from it, in fact would be thrown in Hell Fire." (Ibn Majah; vide: Mishkat, 1/174, by A.H. Siddiqui).

  The translator of Mishkat-ul-Masabih (A.H. Siddiqui, pg. 113) said in the footnote to the last Hadith:

  "There is a good deal of difference of opinion as to what the term Sawad al-Azam implies. The overwhelming majority of the scholars are of the view that As-Sawad al-Azam means the largest group of the learned scholars and pious persons whose opinions are held in high esteem in Islam."

Source

 

Upon comparing the sharh's/explanations of the two hadiths , what is stressed on is-Unity on what is Halal and Haram by way of in the Jammah/the Muslim Community and by way of following the "largest group of the learned scholars and pious persons whose opinions are held in high esteem in Islam".

 

Now its important to ask the question: how is what is Halal and Haram determined in Islam?

 

Can a Masalah/question be raised without examining the Opinion of the Scholars and the Ulama and/or what the Islamic tradition has said on that matter(all 1400yrs worth of quran and sunnah analysis by Ulama/Muslim Scholars)?

 

Who is the reference point for Quality in the Ummah? After all, the Most fearful of Allah/conscious of Allah are the Ulama(according to the Quran)?

 

If the Ummah of today agreed that Men and Women are Equal (say the majority of them felt this way) or Jihaddd should be Abolished, would that hadith 'Verily my Ummah would not agree....' be False? Or would the definition of UMMAH have to be extended to cover 1400yrs of Islam and Muslims?

 

I would go with the latter and say that in the context of that particular Hadith, Ummah is defined from the day that the Message of Islam came until the Day of Judgement.

 

If that is the case, then that hadith is True and shows the OVERALL GOODNESS of the Ummah of Muhammed (sallahu caliyhe wasilm). We can't just measure the Ummah Qualitatively based on a single or two incidents, after all, the Ummah has been around thus far for 1400+ years.

 

Thus, the use of that hadith to justify Democracy is not appropriate and infact becomes self-serving of a MODERN WORLDVIEW i.e. Democratic Idealism.

 

Xiinfiin said:

 

Though stability is very important it should not be used to preserve and justify the rule of monarchy. Islam does not endorse monarchy as it contradicts the concept of Shuura.

I was trying to illustrate to Callypso that a Hereditary Monarchy is better then a Democracy and that it was a case of the 'Lesser of Two Evils'.

 

Democracy is the worst enemy to Religion and all that maintains 'some aspects' of religion is better.

 

I didn't say that a Hereditary Monarchy is what should be Supported at ALL TIMES, rather when left with only 2 choices: Democracy or Hereditary Monarchy; the latter is the better choice to preserve one's deen.

 

Democracy feeds on people's Ego's and makes everyone think in the 'I', meaning always its 'Nafsi, ya Nafsi', 'I think it, therefor it must be right' or 'i have a right to say my piece'

 

In the case of Iran, I think that Iranian parliamanet and elected President were concessions that the Imam Khoomenni had to give to the people. He was always the Imam and he fought long and hard to prove that Ulama should be the Leaders.

 

In the case of Hamaas, they used an Election 'selectively' to get a job done, of which I think it might turn around an Bite them back and hurt them. Reason being is people have a False Dunya oriented plan when they Vote and participate in an Democractic Election and their measure of WHO IS A GOOD CANADIATE is usually in monetary values and carries with it a PROMISE of a GOOD and Easire Life.

 

As it is stated in the Quran, what is Attractive is the Pleasures of this world 'Beautified for mankind is love of the joys (that come) from women and offspring; and stored-up heaps of gold and silver, and horses branded (with their mark), and cattle and land. That is comfort of the life of the world. Allah! With Him is a more excellent abode. ' (Sura Al Imran, v.14) and these are the things that people look to get out of their state, their nation, their country.

[Xoogsade]

Khayr, How materialistic is it to alleviate poverty and provide communities with the means of education and jobs? Did I get you wrong or you were saying Hamas based their campaign on materialistic agenda? Granted, eradication of corruption and ensuring all the wealth goes back to the community in the form of services was their platform, I fail to see how that would be wrong islamically. Isn't that the responsibility of governments and if they fail in that they should be relieved of their duties so someone else who can do that be put in place?

 

You didn't explain what kind of monarchy is better than democracy. What kind of monarchy do you have in mind? btw, among other negatives and disdainful aspects to monarchy, It is contemptible to be a subject of the king.

 

Democracy can not be an ideal government all the time. It is subejctive. How good it is always depends on what the majority who decide believe in. If the majority agrees on certain ideals that contradict common decency, for example "slavery" is good, bigotry and discrimination are okay, then democracy becomes a mob rule where the minority have to live with the consequences of the majority's choice as America used to be. By contrast, if a muslim country allows its citizens to vote for their leaders, and consequently people choose someone who has their interests at heart, who rules them by the book of God, and who will be accountable to them all the time, then the democratic process they used is actually in line with islam. That is how I understood the articles posted that were in favour of democracy. The basic idea is, can muslims choose their own government and leaders? Can they replace if government fails them? What do you say? Loyalty to a leader is out of the question if he is not qualified. Wax loyalty la dhaho cid laga aqrisanaayana ma jirto.

 

This idea of governments staying in place forever and leaders staying on unchallenged is what put islam where it is. There is no accountability although some islamic governments are better than others.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Xoogsade:

 

How materialistic is it to alleviate poverty and provide communities with the means of education and jobs?

There is Hierarchy in all and for the Muslims, that is not that at the TOP of the Hill. For if that was the case, then Capitalism would be the ideal Political theory to follow for Muslims. Alleviating poverty has to be done under the Islamic Parameters re: Zakat, sadqa,eliminating riba sources etc. Likewise are provisions for education and jobs. A Muslim party can't have a heavily sided-Horizantal platform re: allocating funds and resources. The Methodolgy can't become the PURPOSE of the Islamic state/Party.

 

Did I get you wrong or you were saying Hamas based their campaign on materialistic agenda? Granted, eradication of corruption and ensuring all the wealth goes back to the community in the form of services was their platform, I fail to see how that would be wrong islamically.Isn't that the responsibility of governments and if they fail in that they should be relieved of their duties so someone else who can do that be put in place?

The mistake is in participating in a system that has been set up to curtail RELIGION re: democracy. Once you have done that, you are playing in an 'alien field' wherein the rules and regulations are already SET UP for you to LOSE. Where is Islam, when people go hungry and jobles-thats what the people will ask? But Islam didn't promise FULL BELLIES and Heaven on Earth....Hamaas made those promises, at the very least-implicitly, through participatiing in an democractic election. People want dunya driven things like you have stated, and that is their Priority ABOVE ALL ELSE. So if tomorrow, there is no 3 course meal on the table, then the people will get angry and accuse Hamaas of 'FAILING THEM'. The deen is there to do WHAT IS RIGHT regardless of peronal preferences.The deen is not their to 'FILL BELLIES'. Thats not the aim, its a Part i.e. trying to do justice on earth, but not the Whole aim of the deen (To be Slave of God, Prepare us for OUR return to our Lord).

 

 

This idea of governments staying in place forever and leaders staying on unchallenged is what put islam where it is. There is no accountability although some islamic governments are better than others.

What is wrong with Stability and some sort of Permenance?...

 

The Amirs would be checked by the ULAMA that is the Ideal. I am of the preference that infact, the ULAMA should be the leaders and it is amongst them that leaders emerge from, for afterall, they are the best in the islamic community.

 

Look, Democracy feeds People's EGOS/XAWOS. Plain and simplely, why else would people support it. It sounds very enticing when you tell someone-You have a say (doesn't have to be Right or Wise...but hey, You have a Say).

 

Next time, go and ELECT what DOCTORS you want to be at your Local Hosiptal based on their Campaigan Platform, or what they said to you and your friends etc...Sounds sttupidd doesn't it!

[Xoogsade]

Khayr, Interestingly saxib, wealth can be vilified and a full stomach be considered a sin depending on who you ask. Likewise, the same vilified wealth can be made into a desirable achievement given the humanitarian islamically accepted projects you can fund with that wealth. Also, a full stomach can be said to aid in worship as severe hunger can render you powerless and unable to function normally or even focus on the same prayers you have to perform daily to get closer to your god. Of course, there is difference between eating like a pig and having your stomach content and moderately filled. But, at the end of the day, a muslim should have basic necesseties met and the state is accountable to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Wasn't the mission of Zakat to collect wealth from the wealthier and give that wealth back to the poorer sections of the society alleviating hunger, poverty, envy and hatred, a class devision and animosity? Fighting poverty is a good islamic cause. Soomaalida waxa waalay faqrigaa ka mid ah saaxib. You don't see Saudis fighting over a sac of corn/maize like somalis do when they get some help from nonmuslims. Imagine what wealth can do for the malnourished child with his ribs barely containing the weakly pulsating heart?

 

 

Anyway, Your point of view about the platform on which Hamas run on is correct only if the people who elected them expect quick riches and a solution to all their problems overnight. However, Palestinians are not fools I hope who expect to be made rich overnight by their elected. The reason they elected these guys is to purge their government from individuals who fattened themselves with Xaram and with a wealth that doesn't belong to them. Uprooting bribery, betterment of public service and eradicating nepotism was the aim. These are important issues that make peace possible and for a society to not pick-up guns against each other. If muslims or any other society for that matter doesn't have the means to address their problems, the only viable option for them is to bloody each other.

 

Permanence is good if there are no needs for a change. Where there is a need, there has to be a change. Adduunyada horumar lama gaareen if people where reclined to a bad condition without seeking change. I agree with you that the main objectives should not be worldly. However, in islam, everything done accordingly becomes otherwordly no matter what the achievements are. I can fly to the moon and pray there and say "Look, I am the first muslim who prayed on the Moon" and seek paradise for being the first human being to prostrate for the creator up there.