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

**Penisvergroesserung** · 07-09-2011, 12:54 PM

I have to disagree with this notion, and it's something that is often trotted out as a reason that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. I've heard so many people say that Muslim cannot have a democratic system of government because people might vote to approve something which is un-Islamic. However, the solution to this is incredibly obvious: make a Constitution that says all newly proposed laws and regulations must abide by the shariah, and have a court system that could strike down laws and regulations that they deem un-Islamic. I just find this whole "oh but they could vote on something and make that which Allah declared haram halal" argument to be absurd. Well...so could any ruler! The difference is that if that ruler does such a thing, within a democratic framework, the people could simply elect him out of office or the courts could simply strike down his laws. In an autocratic system, the leader could do all of these things, and nothing could stop him other than a revolt, which of course is a horrible thing to occur within a country because it leads to economic stagnation and the purging of counter-revolutionaries--or if the revolt fails, simply quite a lot of dead people.

1) Brother, Islam consists of its OWN RULING SYSTEM.
do you believe this?

2) Or do you believe that: 'Islam does NOT have its own ruling system'?
In which case Muslims can incorporate various systems which serve whichever purposes.

You SEEM to say in your response that Islam does NOT have its own ruling system and therefore Islam and democracy should "coexist", on the necks and backs of the Muslim people no less.

I for one consider such a proposition for Muslim people- coexist between Islam and democracy- to be a BETRAYAL of who they are, what they represent, and who they can become.

I offer you the benefit of the doubt that your position is based on confusion of some of the ideas- an intended objective of those who champion 'democracy- because I have read your comments here for some time now and you seem like a trustworthy brother.

Briefly, here is what I mean by the Islamic ruling system:

A)the absolute Sovereignty belongs to Allah

B)the authority to rule and implement is for the Muslim Ummah

C) Process of Legislation: Ijtihad. The utmost, sincere, earnest, qualified exertion through the examination of the evidences (adillah) to extract a ruling (hukm) = ijtihad

(A = the source of legislation absolutely emanates from Allah, which means the Wahy. It is NOT a transient, inexact notion (which is sometimes presented in mottos), rather its a definitive issue (of belief). The legislation from the Divine is the Hukm Sharii: the address of the Legislator regarding the actions of Man. So A = Hukm Sharii. )

_____________

Here is how democracy is practiced IN REALITY (as opposed to some fanciful idea of what we can concoct,as several Muslim countries have attempted to do over the past 60 years):

A) Sovereignty resides with "the people".

B) Authority to rule resides with "the people".

C) The process of legislation: majority vote according to constitutional rules.

A = a certain people declare themselves the sole power of a region, and formulate a story about themselves in their "preambles". The Egyptian people claimed to have toiled in Egypt since the dawn of civilization. The Pakistani constitution recognizes Jinnah as the 'founder' of the state and "faithful to the declaration made by the founder..." declares Pakistan a democratic state, thus presenting the sovereignty of the state in the name of Jinnah.

B = The rule and power of the state resides with "the people", how ever they choose to define the people. In the case of Egypt, its "Egyptian people" as defined by the nation who's borders are defined UN treaties, as opposed to an "Egyptian people" who existed 500 years ago and who's empire stretched into neighboring countries of Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Arabia, etc., or some other definition of "people".

C = As sovereigns, these people devise constitutions which define their processes of legislation which are majority rule, but with variations. Ijtihad is not the process of legislation of a democracy as legislation emanates from the state's constitutionally recognized "sovereign".

___________________

Yes, a people can CHOOSE to vote with various restrictions- ie. according to Shariah-, but this connotes the sovereign resides with the people.

This is quite different from the Islamic ruling system.
When the issue arose of war against the apostate tribes during the khilafat of Abu Bakr (rah), many sahaba (rahm) encouraged and advised him to relent and negotiate with the tribes. Abu Bakr (rah) rejected this because he understood the Adillah- the guidance from the Revelation in clarity. Refusal to pay zakah is abandoning an obligatory act of ibaadat which places one outside of Islam, which no longer offers protection and security.

It could be understood that many of these tribes refused zakat as political power plays to gain more influence in Madinah. For Shia, they claim some tribes refused to pay because they believed Ali (rah) deserved to be khalifah. In both cases, they played political games with the Deen of Islam against the best generation, the most knowledgeable generation. It could be argued that the majority of so called Muslims at that time rebelled against Abu Bakr (rah). In a republic, it would have shifted the power to dissolve the parliement and have reelections. Except, Abu Bakr (rah) adoption, the hukm which he adopted regarding abandoning zakah, was that its riddah.

According to a democracy, there would have been grounds for reelection as the majority did not accept Abu Bakr (as they were driven by Shaytan- another intangible factor which cannot be coded into a democacy or republican constitution).

Its a matter of perception: Islam guides, or Islam is guided. Which is it?

For the Prophet (saaw) and the khulafa rashiduun, Islam guided them as a Way of Life which provided ideological direction.

Today, the Muslim world is increasingly under the influence of governments and "religious figures" who preseent Islam and in need of reform, or which is man made, etc. and needs to coexist or be altered to fit some modern idea.

07-09-2011, 12:54 PM	#23
Penisvergroesserung Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 610 Senior Member	I have to disagree with this notion, and it's something that is often trotted out as a reason that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. I've heard so many people say that Muslim cannot have a democratic system of government because people might vote to approve something which is un-Islamic. However, the solution to this is incredibly obvious: make a Constitution that says all newly proposed laws and regulations must abide by the shariah, and have a court system that could strike down laws and regulations that they deem un-Islamic. I just find this whole "oh but they could vote on something and make that which Allah declared haram halal" argument to be absurd. Well...so could any ruler! The difference is that if that ruler does such a thing, within a democratic framework, the people could simply elect him out of office or the courts could simply strike down his laws. In an autocratic system, the leader could do all of these things, and nothing could stop him other than a revolt, which of course is a horrible thing to occur within a country because it leads to economic stagnation and the purging of counter-revolutionaries--or if the revolt fails, simply quite a lot of dead people. 1) Brother, Islam consists of its OWN RULING SYSTEM. do you believe this? 2) Or do you believe that: 'Islam does NOT have its own ruling system'? In which case Muslims can incorporate various systems which serve whichever purposes. You SEEM to say in your response that Islam does NOT have its own ruling system and therefore Islam and democracy should "coexist", on the necks and backs of the Muslim people no less. I for one consider such a proposition for Muslim people- coexist between Islam and democracy- to be a BETRAYAL of who they are, what they represent, and who they can become. I offer you the benefit of the doubt that your position is based on confusion of some of the ideas- an intended objective of those who champion 'democracy- because I have read your comments here for some time now and you seem like a trustworthy brother. Briefly, here is what I mean by the Islamic ruling system: A)the absolute Sovereignty belongs to Allah B)the authority to rule and implement is for the Muslim Ummah C) Process of Legislation: Ijtihad. The utmost, sincere, earnest, qualified exertion through the examination of the evidences (adillah) to extract a ruling (hukm) = ijtihad (A = the source of legislation absolutely emanates from Allah, which means the Wahy. It is NOT a transient, inexact notion (which is sometimes presented in mottos), rather its a definitive issue (of belief). The legislation from the Divine is the Hukm Sharii: the address of the Legislator regarding the actions of Man. So A = Hukm Sharii. ) _____________ Here is how democracy is practiced IN REALITY (as opposed to some fanciful idea of what we can concoct,as several Muslim countries have attempted to do over the past 60 years): A) Sovereignty resides with "the people". B) Authority to rule resides with "the people". C) The process of legislation: majority vote according to constitutional rules. A = a certain people declare themselves the sole power of a region, and formulate a story about themselves in their "preambles". The Egyptian people claimed to have toiled in Egypt since the dawn of civilization. The Pakistani constitution recognizes Jinnah as the 'founder' of the state and "faithful to the declaration made by the founder..." declares Pakistan a democratic state, thus presenting the sovereignty of the state in the name of Jinnah. B = The rule and power of the state resides with "the people", how ever they choose to define the people. In the case of Egypt, its "Egyptian people" as defined by the nation who's borders are defined UN treaties, as opposed to an "Egyptian people" who existed 500 years ago and who's empire stretched into neighboring countries of Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Arabia, etc., or some other definition of "people". C = As sovereigns, these people devise constitutions which define their processes of legislation which are majority rule, but with variations. Ijtihad is not the process of legislation of a democracy as legislation emanates from the state's constitutionally recognized "sovereign". ___________________ Yes, a people can CHOOSE to vote with various restrictions- ie. according to Shariah-, but this connotes the sovereign resides with the people. This is quite different from the Islamic ruling system. When the issue arose of war against the apostate tribes during the khilafat of Abu Bakr (rah), many sahaba (rahm) encouraged and advised him to relent and negotiate with the tribes. Abu Bakr (rah) rejected this because he understood the Adillah- the guidance from the Revelation in clarity. Refusal to pay zakah is abandoning an obligatory act of ibaadat which places one outside of Islam, which no longer offers protection and security. It could be understood that many of these tribes refused zakat as political power plays to gain more influence in Madinah. For Shia, they claim some tribes refused to pay because they believed Ali (rah) deserved to be khalifah. In both cases, they played political games with the Deen of Islam against the best generation, the most knowledgeable generation. It could be argued that the majority of so called Muslims at that time rebelled against Abu Bakr (rah). In a republic, it would have shifted the power to dissolve the parliement and have reelections. Except, Abu Bakr (rah) adoption, the hukm which he adopted regarding abandoning zakah, was that its riddah. According to a democracy, there would have been grounds for reelection as the majority did not accept Abu Bakr (as they were driven by Shaytan- another intangible factor which cannot be coded into a democacy or republican constitution). Its a matter of perception: Islam guides, or Islam is guided. Which is it? For the Prophet (saaw) and the khulafa rashiduun, Islam guided them as a Way of Life which provided ideological direction. Today, the Muslim world is increasingly under the influence of governments and "religious figures" who preseent Islam and in need of reform, or which is man made, etc. and needs to coexist or be altered to fit some modern idea.
	Quote