[Ephejvll]

Abu Zakir and brothers for this thread.

It may only be a semantic distinction, but I argue that the authentic Muslim ruler differs from the democratic ruler in the following way:
in an Islamic society which fulfills the minimal requirements of Islam, the authentic Muslim ruler is first a servant of Allah then a ruler, whereas in a democratic society which represents democracy, the democratic ruler is first a servant of men, then a ruler.

This difference means that the sincere servant of Allah can never be misguided by Allah as a servant to the Most Just, the Author of Justice, the One who commands good and forbids evil. Even if a servant of Allah commits evil, what is Good remains universal and absolute, and such an evil servant still has a path of repentance and return to the Good. And what is Evil remains Evil universally and in absolution such that even if the evil servant rules for 50 years, the distinction between Good and Evil remains, and Allah remains, The Living, The One who Never Sleeps.


In contrast, the democratic ruler is first a servant of men. Men do NOT have the attributes of Allah ().
The servant of men is encumbered by the commands and desires of men be they good or evil. And as is usually the case, evil, corrupt men tend to prevail in advancing their evil in political affairs in short term on account of their willingness to deceive, corrupt, betray, defy laws and regulations and customs. As well, evil men thirst for the material things of this world, making their misguidance easier to accomplish and fulfill.
Hence, the servant of men is more inclined to become the servant of evil men. In a democracy, as men are the sovereign power and the ruler is their servant, men can alter what is good and what is evil so that they become relative, even reversed.

The servant of Allah has a trustworthy Lord and Master.
The servant of men is encumbered with the fickleness and weakness of men.