DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**interbaoui** · 04-07-2012, 04:00 AM

it's not actually bias, if we are to talk about islamic systems of government then we have to start at the heart of Islam (makkah and medina) I don't really care for KSA as a whole but it just happens to be that the two holy cities are in KSA, I tried to keep the post short, but I did highlight monarchies as a plural and presidencies as a plural................

.......I also did point out what is happening in syria. I can also name governments of UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan etc etc......

How are these monarchies "islamically sanctioned".

I do accept the the wahabi najdis are bad maybe as bad as some other "muslim" leaders in the ummah, but that is a different topic. We can also discuss Quran 35: 6 and Tafsir Jalalyn's take on this verse, but that is not the topic here.

It's easy to side step the issue here and bring up the najdis, as the argumentation i give is strong for Democracy in Islam, and it is hard to refute it for people who think democracy is the opposite of islamic way of government.

Did you know Abu Bakr(ra) was nominated as a candidate for caliph before he was ELECTED? YES elected!

so how is democracy un islamic?

Because democracy means that the people decide when the khilafah is not determined in this manner. The sahaba

didn't go to the ballot boxes to cast a vote for who the next khalifa should be. Democracy is also an extremely flawed system, where an uneducated majority can overrule a learned minority and thus lead to imbalance and downfall. Monarchies, albeit un-Islamic, have been shown to be more stable than democracies. Khilafah incorporates what makes monarchies stable: the khalifa rules until death. So, hypothetically speaking, if there was a general election in Pakistan under what you understand to be a khilafah, would you want a Zardari ruling Pakistan until death? Of course not.

Democracies leave room for correction by limiting terms, but then this makes those in power care less about the country and more about re-electability.

Democracy isn't one rigid system of government. The democratic government of UK is different to that of the USA, both of which are different to that of Germany.

Islamic also has a different form of democracy. Doesn't mean fodder for the shias as the system they propose is that of a kind of monarchy whereas as demonstrated the Islamic system is democracy, well atleast before yazeed it was.

salam

As I said, democracy means that the layperson votes, regardless of how informed he or she is. Why do you think Bush got elected twice, despite much opposition from the academia, both political and scientific?

04-07-2012, 04:00 AM	#17
interbaoui Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	it's not actually bias, if we are to talk about islamic systems of government then we have to start at the heart of Islam (makkah and medina) I don't really care for KSA as a whole but it just happens to be that the two holy cities are in KSA, I tried to keep the post short, but I did highlight monarchies as a plural and presidencies as a plural................ .......I also did point out what is happening in syria. I can also name governments of UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan etc etc...... How are these monarchies "islamically sanctioned". I do accept the the wahabi najdis are bad maybe as bad as some other "muslim" leaders in the ummah, but that is a different topic. We can also discuss Quran 35: 6 and Tafsir Jalalyn's take on this verse, but that is not the topic here. It's easy to side step the issue here and bring up the najdis, as the argumentation i give is strong for Democracy in Islam, and it is hard to refute it for people who think democracy is the opposite of islamic way of government. Did you know Abu Bakr(ra) was nominated as a candidate for caliph before he was ELECTED? YES elected! so how is democracy un islamic? Because democracy means that the people decide when the khilafah is not determined in this manner. The sahaba didn't go to the ballot boxes to cast a vote for who the next khalifa should be. Democracy is also an extremely flawed system, where an uneducated majority can overrule a learned minority and thus lead to imbalance and downfall. Monarchies, albeit un-Islamic, have been shown to be more stable than democracies. Khilafah incorporates what makes monarchies stable: the khalifa rules until death. So, hypothetically speaking, if there was a general election in Pakistan under what you understand to be a khilafah, would you want a Zardari ruling Pakistan until death? Of course not. Democracies leave room for correction by limiting terms, but then this makes those in power care less about the country and more about re-electability. Democracy isn't one rigid system of government. The democratic government of UK is different to that of the USA, both of which are different to that of Germany. Islamic also has a different form of democracy. Doesn't mean fodder for the shias as the system they propose is that of a kind of monarchy whereas as demonstrated the Islamic system is democracy, well atleast before yazeed it was. salam As I said, democracy means that the layperson votes, regardless of how informed he or she is. Why do you think Bush got elected twice, despite much opposition from the academia, both political and scientific?
	Quote