[LookSe]

Salaam brothers & Ramadhan Kareem

I am happy to be corrected if you would like to address the core points which includes the above and that whatever the Messenger (saw) DID bring is Islam, and what he did NOT, is kufr.

For clarification, this is referring to the Deen and not technology which has been permitted under the general rules of all things (not laws) being permitted through the verses such as Allah created all things for our use whereas the legislation has bene restricted to what Allah has revelealed in the Quran and Sunnah.

May Allah reward you all for your sincere efforts to understand His Deen and to seek his pleasure only.

I agree with you. Democracy stinks...if America is a good example of Democratic rule then we are in for alot of of trouble if we too adopt it. If the root is rotten the branches will also be rotten and the fruit will be rotten. Democracy stinks.

[atmowasia]

Why not define Democracy and explain why its stinks in specific ? Because America could stink for more million other possible reasons too and no reason to attribute it to democracy iin particular.

On the other note, between kingship and democracy, which one do you think is preferable and less stinking ?

And explain what is specific feature of the caliphate such that it is distinct from kingship and democracy ?

[BoBoMasterDesign]

Why not define Democracy and explain why its stinks in specific ? Because America could stink for more million other possible reasons too and no reason to attribute it to democracy iin particular. It would take too long to write everything that is wrong with democracy.

1) look at its origins in the French Revolution (the roots), it had a very high rhetoric speaking of equality, liberty and fraternity...and it brought Terror. These things are still there, they remain dormant and they become activated when a leader declares a state of emergency when 'normal' laws have become suspended, now people can be arrested and detained without charge. They can be locked up in camps. Suddenly everyone needs to carry ID papers, be body searched, all their movements and words are tracked.

2) Look at America and Britain in the last few decades the state has grown in power and individuals or the voters have lost their liberty and power...we are starting to live in a police state. Millions are taken by force in taxation and given to billionaire bankers. This is freedom? Who is in charge bankers or 'the people'? It is obvious it is bankers and other elite groups. These groups promote democracy elsewhere because it opens up society to their manipulations, power and control while they hide behind politicians or "sovreignty of the people".

Khalifat is similar to Kingship and personal rule, except here the khalif submits to the Shariah. His advisors also impliment the sharia. They collect Zakat and Jizya from the non Muslims, they ban riba and banking and they allow halal trade and commerce.

"The worst forms of tyranny, or certainly the most successful ones, are not those we rail against but those that so insinuate themselves into the imagery of our consciousness, and the fabric of our lives, as not to be perceived as tyranny." ~ Michael Parenti

[mralabama]

It would take too long to write everything that is wrong with democracy.

1) look at its origins in the French Revolution (the roots), it had a very high rhetoric speaking of equality, liberty and fraternity...and it brought Terror. These things are still there, they remain dormant and they become activated when a leader declares a state of emergency when 'normal' laws have become suspended, now people can be arrested and detained without charge. They can be locked up in camps. Suddenly everyone needs to carry ID papers, be body searched, all their movements and words are tracked.

2) Look at America and Britain in the last few decades the state has grown in power and individuals or the voters have lost their liberty and power...we are starting to live in a police state. Millions are taken by force in taxation and given to billionaire bankers. This is freedom? Who is in charge bankers or 'the people'? It is obvious it is bankers and other elite groups. These groups promote democracy elsewhere because it opens up society to their manipulations, power and control while they hide behind politicians or "sovreignty of the people".

Khalifat is similar to Kingship and personal rule, except here the khalif submits to the Shariah. His advisors also impliment the sharia. They collect Zakat and Jizya from the non Muslims, they ban riba and banking and they allow halal trade and commerce.

1) Democracy existed long before French Revolution. Terror could be associated with caliphate wanting groups like al qaeda too and therefore is self refuting.

2) those banking arguments don't neccessarily apply to democracy. And one could also argue that such laws don't make it really free,and hence they are not really pure freedom. Or the ideal concept of "freedom" espoused by them is not being practised by them.

If caliphate and kingship is similar then why the distinction ? If the distinction is purely based on application of shariah by caliph, then

1) was the post ummayad era rulers not applying shariah anymore ? Did they submit to something other than shariah? Did Muslims support rulers espousing something other than shariah for 1000 of years?

2) how exactly is personal rule of one man more closer to islam then democracy, if lets says democracy also submitted to shariah ? The argument against democracy is that "islam is not guided by whimps of population". Fine. But then that makes Islam even further less guided by whimps of one man. So at the end of the day it is submission to shariah thats key and that can happen with a "caliph"(no one here has explained how a caliph would even be elected) or a kingship or a ruler elected through larger representation of the people(democracy).

Furthermore, the first four caliphs were mujthahids on their own. Who exactly is the mujthahids of present era qualified to be a caliph? If the caliph is not mujthaid then religious opinion are automatically diverted to the large ulema to deduce and thier ijma while the personal opinion of the leader (whether you call him "caliph" or "king" or "president") is only relevant in non-religious secular issues, and so your back to where you started arguing against.

[opergolon]

If you really believe that brother.

Then you should throw your cell phone and computer in the garbage can.

And never ride in a car again.

Seriously......

Does the cell phone or car emanate from the kufr aqeedah or civilisation?

Using a phone is not like wearing a Cross or accepting Democracy, which both are linked to a religion or ideology.

Can u give an example of when the beloved Messenger (saw) took anything from another ideology?

[tooratrack]

Why not define Democracy and explain why its stinks in specific ? Because America could stink for more million other possible reasons too and no reason to attribute it to democracy iin particular.

On the other note, between kingship and democracy, which one do you think is preferable and less stinking ?

And explain what is specific feature of the caliphate such that it is distinct from kingship and democracy ?

Democracy is "rule for the people, by the people" and comes from the greeks. The contradiction with Islam is that under Democracy Man is Sovereign and Man is the Law Maker / Legislator.

In Islam, Allah swt is Sovereign and the Authority belongs to the Ummah (they decide who rules them and they can replace him whenever).

The Khaliph is the Executor of Allahs Laws and Punishments.

In the past Ali (ra) was taken to court by a Jew and Umar (ra) was corrected by a citizen.

Does anyone disagree with the above?

[Unonounaple]

Democracy is "rule for the people, by the people" and comes from the greeks. The contradiction with Islam is that under Democracy Man is Sovereign and Man is the Law Maker / Legislator.

Does anyone disagree with the above?

Yes if you read wareas post carefully you will understand that his position about Islamic democracy is not God vs Man. Its Single man vs Many men understanding what God wants.

[inownsuipsy]

Does the cell phone or car emanate from the kufr aqeedah or civilisation?

There have been several threads on SF talking about Muslim inventions that came out of Islamic culture.

Then the cell phone and car were Christian inventions that came out of Christian/Western culture.

True story.........

[DrunkMans]

warea;800706]1) Democracy existed long before French Revolution. Terror could be associated with caliphate wanting groups like al qaeda too and therefore is self refuting. The Greek city states are not exactly the same as the post French Revolutionary democracy is it? The only thing the same is the word, otherwise only land owners made the laws, the rest were ruled, and they were small towns by todays standards. The Terror unleashed by the French Revolution was real Terror lasting many months and years with hundreds and thousands of citizens slaughtered by other citizens (so much for fraternity).

2) those banking arguments don't neccessarily apply to democracy. And one could also argue that such laws don't make it really free,and hence they are not really pure freedom. Or the ideal concept of "freedom" espoused by them is not being practised by them. Banking became what it is today under Democracy.


If caliphate and kingship is similar then why the distinction ? If the distinction is purely based on application of shariah by caliph, then

1) was the post ummayad era rulers not applying shariah anymore ? Did they submit to something other than shariah? Did Muslims support rulers espousing something other than shariah for 1000 of years? You had good Kings and bad Kings, some applied the and followed the shariah more than others.

2) how exactly is personal rule of one man more closer to islam then democracy, if lets says democracy also submitted to shariah ? The argument against democracy is that "islam is not guided by whimps of population". Fine. But then that makes Islam even further less guided by whimps of one man. So at the end of the day it is submission to shariah thats key and that can happen with a "caliph"(no one here has explained how a caliph would even be elected) or a kingship or a ruler elected through larger representation of the people(democracy). Personal rule is not like democracy they are very different. Even if we agree that democracy is actually rule by the masses (it is not), it creates a hidden elite with more power than millions of the people, who has the power to object to their rule? If you protest in the streets the police deal with you, it is not freedom. Read Edward Bernays do a search for some of his quotes if you do not believe me. One ruler is held accountable to the Divine Law...Democracy makes its own laws and abandons Divine Laws as unacceptable.

Furthermore, the first four caliphs were mujthahids on their own. Who exactly is the mujthahids of present era qualified to be a caliph? If the caliph is not mujthaid then religious opinion are automatically diverted to the large ulema to deduce and thier ijma while the personal opinion of the leader (whether you call him "caliph" or "king" or "president") is only relevant in non-religious secular issues, and so your back to where you started arguing against. The rule of the Ottomons lasted for 600 years, they were not perfect, but their model of rule is still applicable, Atuturk imposed his secular anti Islamic republic on Turkey but it is a dismal failure. If you look at how their Khalifs ruled they had fuqaha and jurists who served the government.

[GECEDEANY]

American Democracy

No laissez-faire system
Posted on May 31, 2009

Corporations would not be able to acquire irrigation water and other products of ‘the commons’ without the state drafting up the necessary legislation to permit such theft, for instance.

We have not experienced a laissez-faire system. Government has intervened in ‘the market’ to an absolutely extraordinary extent for every decade that I’ve been alive.

Some excerpts from ‘Global Reach’ (Richard Barnet and Robert Muller 1974):

” the biggest global giants, such as ITT and IBM, grew to their present proportions with substantial help from the Pentagon…”[p.60]

….”During the 25 years in which the United States was the most powerful nation on earth [the period 1939-1974 appears to be referred to here] the tighter and more notorious were the links between Washington, Wall Street, and Detroit, the better it was for US companies. When the CIA removed Mohammed Mossadeq (Iran), an obstrperous Iranian premier who “irrationally” tried to interfere with Gulf’s and Standard Oil’s prospects for taking over his country’s oil, or when the same agency rescued Guatemalan banana land from United Fruit from a popularly-elected “subversive” nationalist, these were US patriotic initiatives applauded by businessmen. …The readier the Pentagon and CIA were to bring down or raise up governments in underdeveloped countries, the better the investment climate for US corporations. US military power was used to establish the ground rules within which American business could operate. The US Government acted as consultant for rightist coups in Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Greece and Indonesia [to name a few] and their generals opened their countries to US investment on the most favorable terms. Wherever the flag has been planted around the world, in some 500 major military and naval bases and in the command posts of over a dozen [as of 1974] military interventions, US corporations have moved in….”

US multinational corporations are supported by the US State to benefit the ruling classes, not all US citizens evenly, they are just taken along on the ride, and their minds are shaped by ruling class Propaganda.
more here: http://roma38.wordpress.com/2008/10/

[nerohedfrs]

brother the whole war between the mujahideen and the US after fall of soviet union was mainly because of the US's imposition of democracy on their lands. the US had thought in the 80s the mujahideen would get rid of the soviets and all will be well. but the US did not create the mujahideen it only armed them more. the US did not see that the same people would fight the US because US underestimated the power of Islam. in central asia some of the mujahideen once armed by CIA rebelled when US installed democracy in their lands (saleem shahzad; inside al qaida and taliban). in yemen recently a mujahid again reiterated the same thing.

you said once on a thread you thought afghan taliban as mujahideen. they reject democracy outright. this is why they did not accept ahmad shah massoud's offer to form government in mid 90s. many people who hate mujahideen do so because of their hatreed for salafis. but afghan taliban are not salafi. they are deobandi hanafi.

and it is an established fact mujahideen follow shariah to the best of their abilities under the guidance of their scholars. and their scholars and the overall group of mujahideen reject democracy in muslim lands out right. its a pity you cannot read urdu for the books would have been of much benefit.

In Afghanistan they have had the Loya Jirga for several centuries.

Which is an Islamic style Democracy.

Democracy doesn't have to be based on secularism as it is in the West.

But can be based on Islamic principals.

[CIAFreeAgent]

The phrase loya jirga is Pashto and means "grand council". The institution, which is centuries old, is a similar idea to the Islamic "shura", or consultative assembly, BBC world. wikipedia.

Shura is not democracy, the khalif has his council of advisors he is not obliged to follow any of them, nor are there any types of votes, where majorities win, nor do they debate whether it is acceptable to make haram into halal or visa versa....so it is nothing to do with democracy.

Just Saying.....and true story.

In Afghanistan they have had the Loya Jirga for several centuries.

Which is an Islamic style Democracy.

Democracy doesn't have to be based on secularism as it is in the West.

But can be based on Islamic principals.

[drislerfottor]

Salaam,

Why, oh why do Muslims promote Democracy and when asked to explain, they say that this is Shur'ah which is acceptable in Islam.

Well, words have meanings and the word Democracy has a meaning which is 'rule by the people, for the people...etc'.
The word Shura'h has its own meaning in Islam which is the Shura'h council which is a part of the Islamic State.

So if Muslim's mean Shura'h, then just call it Shura'h! Simple....

Then we wouldn't be having this discussion and everyone would know what we mean.

Jzk

[NudiJuicervich]

In Afghanistan they have had the Loya Jirga for several centuries.

Which is an Islamic style Democracy.

Democracy doesn't have to be based on secularism as it is in the West.

But can be based on Islamic principals.

the taliban demolished that. there is no jirgah system in taliban controlled lands. neither is jirga system islamic. it is cultural.

[Dabdklwu]

Salaam,

Democracy is the political framework of the Capitalist thought, i.e. the ruling system that the Capitalist states and their like implement. Democracy, for those who embrace it, means that people rule themselves by themselves with the systems that they choose….

The most important element of democracy is that it makes the human being and not the Creator as the legislator, which is logical for those who call for the detachment of religion from life because this detachment means to transfer the right to legislate from the Creator to the human being. The Capitalists, in this issue did not discuss whether the Creator has obliged man to follow a certain law and implement it in his life, nor did they even examine this issue at all, rather they appointed man as the legislator without any discussion.

For Muslims to adopt democracy means to disbelieve in all - may Allah forbid - the decisive and conclusive evidences, among which are many Qur’anic verses which oblige them to follow the law of Allah and to reject any other law. Moreover, these verses consider any one of them who does not follow or implement the law of Allah as either a Kafir, a zalim, or a fasiq:


“And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kafiroon).” [TMQ 5:44]
“And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are oppressors (zalimoon).” [TMQ 5:45]
“And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are transgressors (fasiqoon).” [TMQ 5:47]

Therefore, democracy is disbelief (Kufr), and is not compatible with Islam at all.

[exiceJetLip]

Democracy is the political framework of the Capitalist thought, i.e. the ruling system that the Capitalist states and their like implement

Democracy does Not have to be connected to capitalism in order for it to function.

[chujwduperjadzi]

Democracy, for those who embrace it, means that people rule themselves by themselves with the systems that they choose….

Correct.

The ummah can choose to be ruled by Democracy within an Islamic frame work and legal system.

[Uplillacype]

Correct.

The ummah can choose to be ruled by Democracy within an Islamic frame work and legal system.

this isn't physically realizable. the mere idea that 'ummah' will choose and that too within shariah (which is in itself a misnomer) is not possible. look see on the net if there is an english translation of the books ak-1990 gave you. it will clear your mind.

[oneliRafmeene]

The Greek city states are not exactly the same as the post French Revolutionary democracy is it? The only thing the same is the word, otherwise only land owners made the laws, the rest were ruled, and they were small towns by todays standards. The Terror unleashed by the French Revolution was real Terror lasting many months and years with hundreds and thousands of citizens slaughtered by other citizens (so much for fraternity).

"Exactly" is difficult to say because the societys of past are not as complex as today. The essence and concept is the same. And democracy was not something unknown to them nor something that people never discussed in philosophical books or practised prior to French revolution. [Also note that there is obviously a difference anyway with such democracy or any other political concept from the Islamic one, in that the Muslim population including the ruler is neccesarly made subservent to Allah's laws.]

French Revolution was fought against a clerical theocratic government which too is not really Islamic. So neither is French Revolution nor what is before a matter of reference or concern for Muslims.

And the terrror argument as I said is not really a working argument, when al qaeda and other political Islam advocates have unleashed much violence too among muslim societys. Just look up the number of Pakistanis killed in terror attacks alone, probably more than number of Palestinians killed by Israelis.

Banking became what it is today under Democracy. You have to prove the connection. Banking evils could be attributed to a million other reasons too.


You had good Kings and bad Kings, some applied the and followed the shariah more than others. And so could there could be good leaders and bad leaders in representative government too. Kingship was not immune from bad and yet that did not cause Muslims of the past to declare kingship as kufr and heretical bidah and make genetic fallacy arguments against it. Neither is a caliph immune from bad,example being the caliphate of Yazid.

Personal rule is not like democracy they are very different. Even if we agree that democracy is actually rule by the masses (it is not), it creates a hidden elite with more power than millions of the people, who has the power to object to their rule? If your opposed to elitism(on what Quranic basis?), then be reminded that past scholarship devised the formula for caliph being elected by a influential elite called "people who loose and bind". The fact the they did take into consideration the support of such influential people, does prove that the caliph needed the support of the people through popular representatives who had influence over masses and represented their voice. And it is not as what some people here advocate of just one man with a iron fist and personal utopian vision and group of 10 or more ideological think tank supporters(self declared as "shuraa") with a 100 more armed bodygaurds scared to show their face(self declared as "mujahideen"), takeover through coup and violence and justify thier rule with force of arms not minding what the people's opinion of them is.

Electing a caliph through "people who loose and bind" is more closer or infact equivalent to democracy (if people representation is structured in that manner), then kingship. Besides the pre islamic tribal system was also neither kingship and closer to a type of democracy where power was spread out and people's views and tribal leaders(elites) did have a role in electing the leader and decision making rather just one man having power to do anything he wanted. Caliphate emerged from that existing system and not by Quran declaring the pre-islamic "political" system as shirk and kufr in and of itself, and therefore then revealing a new political system with all its new structures and form instead. On the contrary I see caliphate as simply emerging from the political system in place with only difference being their subservience to Allah. Those who think that I'm wrong should clarify what they think is key in caliphate that distinguished it from kingship of Ceaser or the Byzantine empires system and the pre-islamic political system in Arabia.

On top of this, when "bidah" is removed from neo-salafi connotations, you'd see how there is room for change and innovation and increasing goodness in the structure of the system without opposing the shariah.

If you protest in the streets the police deal with you, it is not freedom. Read Edward Bernays do a search for some of his quotes if you do not believe me. One ruler is held accountable to the Divine Law...Democracy makes its own laws and abandons Divine Laws as unacceptable. I don't understand how you make this argument when these groups claiming to be fighting for shariah and caliphate want much greater police control than what's existing. They all carry this fallacy of complaining when the police is against their opinion (and self declare themselves as "martys" and "mujahid") only to want control for themselves and use the police to suppress every opinion other than theirs.

And as I mentiond several times, democracy can be subjected to shariah just as kingship was subjected to shariah. Therefore, the argument doesn't hold. America has certain guiding principles by founding fathers that no one attempts to act against nor can act against. In a Islamic system you would have shariah as principle that no one including politician can act against.

The rule of the Ottomons lasted for 600 years, they were not perfect, but their model of rule is still applicable, Atuturk imposed his secular anti Islamic republic on Turkey but it is a dismal failure. "Anti-islamic" is the key here and which you haven't proved that democracy when defined as sytem with people's representatives, necessarily equals anti-islam. As for "failure" then one could argue that the Ottomon and Mughals already reached their failure break point which was the very reason it fell. Besides the Saudi system was formed supposing to be a "pure" Islamic system by the najdies. Was the najdi system a success ? What guarantee dl you have that when somone else devices their own personal perception of "pure" Islamic government, that it would be pure islam indeed and a necessary success?

If you look at how their Khalifs ruled they had fuqaha and jurists who served the government. And why not fuqaha and jurists serve the representative government too?

My real point was that the first four kaliphs were mujthahids and their opinions was authoritative enough. Today who is the mujthahid who has his opinion as authoritative in islam ? If his opinions on islam are not authoritative, then this ruler no longer acts as someone who's opinion on islam even matters, and his opinion would be narrowed to some secular field he is authoritative in. So at the end of the day, this ruler would take his opinion on matters from authorities of each field and not a one man show doing whatever he wills. So why not get this ruler whose opinion only matters in secular field to be elected by representatives of people, which is nothing but representative democracy ? Why not have these representatives of people elected by the people, which would be parliamentary democracy ? All the time ensuring that they are all subjected to shariah just as Muslims ensured the kingship should be subjected to shariah.

[AffipgyncDync]

Great post Warea!!