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

**kHy87gPC** · 04-07-2012, 04:07 AM

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.

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?

OK, so at the time of the sahabas (RA), it was obvious who the "leaders" were and who people would accept. If the chaliphate was to come back now, how do we decide who the ummah are willing to accept in such a high position of Khalifa?

How do we decide who makes up the shura, and who decides, who decides, who decides, who decides the shura (repeated on purpose).

It was obvious at Abu Bakr's(RA) appointment because they would be from the sahaba of the prophet.

Was Imam Hussain not fighting for Democracy (i.e. right for the ummah to choose the caliph) or was he(RA) fighting for his own kingship? I think the former myself.

Subhanllah

04-07-2012, 04:07 AM	#18
kHy87gPC Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 505 Senior Member	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. 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? OK, so at the time of the sahabas (RA), it was obvious who the "leaders" were and who people would accept. If the chaliphate was to come back now, how do we decide who the ummah are willing to accept in such a high position of Khalifa? How do we decide who makes up the shura, and who decides, who decides, who decides, who decides the shura (repeated on purpose). It was obvious at Abu Bakr's(RA) appointment because they would be from the sahaba of the prophet. Was Imam Hussain not fighting for Democracy (i.e. right for the ummah to choose the caliph) or was he(RA) fighting for his own kingship? I think the former myself. Subhanllah
	Quote