Print Page | Close Window

View on Iraq from Beverly Hills Muslims

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=710
Printed Date: 24 October 2014 at 9:34am


Topic: View on Iraq from Beverly Hills Muslims
Posted By: Suleyman
Subject: View on Iraq from Beverly Hills Muslims
Date Posted: 25 April 2005 at 1:57pm

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE CUT AND RUN FROM IRAQ

 

Historical Lesson

When the U.S. cut and ran from South Vietnam, the American-supported government fell and South Vietnam became part of the communist North Vietnam. American interest in Southeast Asia was not important. So, America ignored Vietnam for the last 30 years. Eventually, Communism and Soviet Union fell apart because they could not financially compete with Western military power. It was then that America became the World Leader.

 

In Iraq

If we cut and run from Iraq today, in northern Iraq, the Sunni Kurds would rise up, declaring an independent Kurdistan. The Sunni Arab terrorists will rise and take over the area in the middle of Iraq (the Sunni triangle). Since the Sunni Arab terrorists and Bin Laden supporters are the same ethnically and ideologically, they can take over Fallujah and Baghdad. In southern Iraq, Shia terrorists like Moqtada Sadr will rise up, taking advantage of the fact that Ayatullah Sistani supporters are moderate, civil and not able to compete with terrorists and dictators. Eventually, Bin Laden and other terrorists like him will take over Iraq. With Syria already hostile against the U.S., it would not be a long time before the governments of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the Gulf Nations would support terrorists as well because if U.S. cannot fight terrorists how can they fight the terrorists. Pakistan led by President Musharaf, with atomic power, has the potential to join the terrorists because of internal pressure. It would be then that all the liberals in the U.S. and Western Europe would face an offer of $100/barrel for oil ($10/gallon for gasoline). The Western economy would collapse, bringing high unemployment and long gas-lines that would lead to civil war, causing a repeat of the L.A. and Watts riots, but a 100 times worse. Eventually, terrorists would attack Israel. And, at that time, the U.S. would have no choice but to attack Iraq again and possibly Pakistan, leading to a highly possible nuclear war with a nuclear Middle East.

 

If we stay the course in Iraq, a Democratic Iraq will bring Democracy and human rights to the Middle East. Eventually, the terrorists in Iraq will give up and move to another area like Syria, Jordan or Lebanon. After a few years, Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will reform the Middle East. Hopefully, by then, America will encourage Egypt to become Democratic. Egypt needs to have elections for Congress. They need to elect a Prime Minister. After 25 years of leadership, Mr. Hosni Mubarak should resign or if he would like to become king, he should declare that so Egypt could take steps to become a Constitutional Monarchy like England. In Saudi Arabia, we must encourage King Fahad to promote Democracy, human rights and women's rights. They must have elections to choose a Prime Minister so they could become a Constitutional Monarchy like England. We cannot promote true Democracy in the Middle East while our friends like Mubarak, Fahad and Musharaf are dictators (although benign dictators). For the sake of stability in the Middle East, we must stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan to encourage a Democratic movement in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. The best of people that can speak out for Democracy in the Muslim countries are American Muslims who are enjoying the fruits of Democracy in the West.

 

Historical Lesson from Turkey

In 1920, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and Greater Turkey was divided into 17 countries. Current Turkey was under military dictatorship for many years in the last 20 years. Slowly, Turkey became more democratic because they wanted to join the European Union (E.U.). Now it has become an example of how an Islamic Democracy should be. In addition to being Democratic, in her last election, an Islamic party won, electing a President that is a practicing Muslim. This is a model that we should look for in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, eventually, all over the Middle East.

 

How Do We Promote Democracy in the World

In addition to President Bush and the U.S., NATO, E.U., and, eventually, U.N. must promote Democracy. Leaders who are not elected by their people must be expelled from the U.N. and be isolated in the world. U.N. must be a place for fairly elected leaders, not the tyrants, murderers and dictators, like former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Only at that time freedom will ring all over the world.

 

Please reply and educate us in our dialogue.




Replies:
Posted By: Suleyman
Date Posted: 25 April 2005 at 2:02pm
cut and run?...high level composed article...


Posted By: ummziba
Date Posted: 25 April 2005 at 2:13pm

I have heard many Muslims say that democracy is not compatible with Islam.  For example, what if the majority of people decide that they want something that is un-Islamic (for example, banning hijab).  Then, this majority votes for the un-Islamic thing and wins (because that is how democracy works). 

You cannot rely on Muslims all being 'good' Muslims in a voting situation.  People will vote for how they want things to be.  What if the un-Islamic thing wins over in an election?  How is this compatible with Islam?  A democratic Islamic society is liable to move more and more away from Islam if the people are not completely submitters to the Almighty Sustainer.

Just trying to move the dialogue along with some "what if's".

Peace, ummziba.



-------------
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words...they break my soul ~


Posted By: Suleyman
Date Posted: 25 April 2005 at 2:29pm
Originally posted by ummziba

I have heard many Muslims say that democracy is not compatible with Islam.  For example, what if the majority of people decide that they want something that is un-Islamic (for example, banning hijab).  Then, this majority votes for the un-Islamic thing and wins (because that is how democracy works). 

You cannot rely on Muslims all being 'good' Muslims in a voting situation.  People will vote for how they want things to be.  What if the un-Islamic thing wins over in an election?  How is this compatible with Islam?  A democratic Islamic society is liable to move more and more away from Islam if the people are not completely submitters to the Almighty Sustainer.

Just trying to move the dialogue along with some "what if's".

Peace, ummziba.

 

Democracy and Islam

Question:

Assalam Alaikum,

My preliminary reading on some past/classical materials/literatures on the subject of Islamic political science or political theory there is no mention of either the concept of electoral democracy or its equivalent concepts if there is any, or democratization. It is very interesting to note here that instead of conceptualizing democracy or its equivalent terms, most scholars write in greater details the concept and institutions and institutionalization derived from justice ('adl). My questions are:

  1. Why the total absence or lacking of concept or idea of democracy or democratization in the political thoughts and writings of our past scholars?
  2. What are other terms that existed then that either close or resemble (electoral) democracy?
  3. Some Muslim scholars put up an interesting argument that some political theorists and philosophers like Imam Mawardi and Imam Ghazali did visualize and entertain this very concept of electoral democracy even though pax-Islamica then was a kingdom. These scholars were in dilemma: to proceed with this kind of political experiment of which they can ill effort or to provide solution to fast disintegration of the pax-Islamica. They decided to save the ummah from further territorial fragmentation. As a result a lot of political literatures were written not only to justify the kingship from Islamic perspective but to islamize/strengthen the kingship. Ahkam al sultaniyyah is one of them. Eversince the ummah was locked up with a governing system that is ruler-centered rather than people-centerd. My question: Is the above premise historically correct?

I was informed that the late Abul A'la Maududi wrote a comprehensive argument to support election as a preferable and constitutional mean of transferring power. How could I hold of this article? So far I have not seen its English translation.

I really appreciate if you could recommend me some materials/ literitures/ books on Islamic perspective on electoral democracy/ democratization/ election

Jamaludin mohyiddin
USA

Answer:

Thank you for contacting JI dear Jamaludin Mohyiddin!
Wa ‘alaikum assalam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatohu.
Structures and forms took shape through evolution. That is very natural and understandable. The democracy, as we understand today, is not very old. It however, took a bloody struggle for humanity to reach this stage, and it was still not perfect. Afterall democracy does not simply mean to vote once in a given period and then let the representative act at his whims till the next polling day.

A true democracy entails meaningful consultation and participation in policy-decisions and accountability from top to bottom. If that is ensured, then the type of government – parliamentary, presidential, central or federative – makes no difference. In the pure Islamic governance during the days of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the four right-guided Caliphs, we find all shades. Yet the basic elements of consultation and accountability were always there. The Qur‘an ordained Shura that makes the essence of participative approach.
Sayyid Mawdudi was quite clear in this respect. In his varied voluminous works he repeatedly noted that democracy in Islam will not be un-bridled. According to him first of all, true. Sovereignty rests with Allah. Bearing this basic principle in mind, when one examines the premise as to what should be the status of those who undertake to enforce Allah’s rule in the Universe, the spontaneous response will be that they should be reckoned as the vicegerents of the real Ruler.

For human beings Islam applies the term vicegerency in place of sovereignty. Therefore, whoever rules this world under the Islamic constitution, must indispensably be the vicegerent of the Sovereign who would be empowered to exercise that much of authority as delegated to him.

What is clearly mentioned in the Qur’an (Al-Nur: 55) is the promise that every Muslim has been made His vicegerent; not that He will exalt some one of them as viceroy. It goes to establish that each and every faithful bears the responsibility of vicegerency. The vicegerency bestowed by Allah is common for all believers and not specified for any one person, family, race or class. Every believer is vicegerent in his capacity and all individuals are answerable to Allah, severally.

“Every one of you is a ruler and all of you are answerable for you  subjects.” (al-Hadith), and no one vicegerent is inferior to another in any respect. This is what provides real basis of democracy in Islam.

Analyzing concept of vicegerency, these points thus accrue:

A society in which every one is vicegerent and equal partner in vicegerency, cannot give way to class distinction, or privilege by birth or place in the society – every one shall enjoy the same status and the same rank. Preference (if any) shall be according to personal ability and conduct. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) specifically mentioned this in clear terms.

In such a society there can be no impediments for any individual or for any group of persons due to reason of birth, status in society or profession barring the growth, personal capabilities of a person or the development of individual’s personality. One should avail opportunities for development on equal basis like all other members of the society. All avenues should be open to him to grow according to his capability to the extent possible, but without constraining others in advancing similarly.

There is no room for dictatorship of an individual or group in such society because here all are vicegerents. No Muslim can be deprived of his vicegerency by any one to usurp absolute power. Here the real position of a ruler is that all the Muslims together (or to use Islamic term, all the vicegerents) willingly repose their vicegerency in him. Thus he becomes answerable to Allah on the one hand, and to the common people who entrusted their vicegerency unto him, on the other hand. If that person gets irresponsible, assumes absolute powers and becomes a dictator, he turns to be a usurper, rather than being a vicegerent, because dictatorship is, in fact, negation of the vicegerency.

In such a society, every sane and mature person, man or woman should enjoy the right of vote, because he or she is the bearer of vicegerency. Allah has not conditioned his or her vicegerency with any particular standard of ability or wealth – rather it is conditioned with faith and one’s sedate conduct. Therefore, every Muslim enjoys equality of franchise with other Muslims.

In this way, Islam has established democracy of highest order.

When Islamic system of governance is discussed a term Hukoomat-e-Ilahiyya is used. But some people mix it up with theocracy of the type they visualize. Infact, of the three components of Western concept of theocracy, only one has been accepted by Islam, that is the faith in ‘Allah’s sovereignty. Its second component, i.e. a class of bishops to enforce God’s sovereignty by becoming His spokesmen, is absolutely non-existent in Islam. As for its third component – getting the self made commandments recognized as Divine Commands – the holy Qur’an fulfills this purpose with its comprehensive commandments. Further, for the interpretation and explanations of Holy Qur’an, both verbal and practical instructions (Hadith and Sunnah) from the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) are available. Established means are available to verify the veracity of the collection of Hadith. Only that much which comes through these two sources is from Allah. As against this, no jurist, imam, saint or a scholar enjoys the privilege that his words and deeds be followed unquestioned like the commandments of Allah. With this vivid difference, it is absolutely wrong to call Islamic state a theocracy in Western terms.

What the West calls democracy is a combination of two basic concepts:

Legal and political sovereignty of the people, that practically comes into effect through the majority of the people or their elected representatives, and;

Installation and dismissal of the government to administer the state with the free will of the people. Islam takes only the second concept. As for the first, Islam divides it into two parts, viz. legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. While legal sovereignty rests with Allah – the Creator – whose commandments whether in His Book or in the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace be upon him) are reckoned as unalterable laws of the state. The political sovereignty is named vicegerency (i.e. the vicegerency of the real Sovereign – Allah), which is entrusted to the Muslims at large, the citizens of the state. Thus, practically vicegerency shall come into effect through the majority of the trusted representatives of the people. Keeping in view this basic difference, it is again not correct to call it democracy in Western terms.

Vicegerency of the common Muslim makes the Islamic vicegerency a democracy as against Caesarism, priesthood or a religious theocracy of Western perception. The difference is that the word democracy for the Westerns means sovereignty of the people. Whereas the Muslims define democracy as the element of vicegerency, which rests with the people. In the Western democracy, governments are formed and changed with the vote of the common people to administer a country.

Islamic democracy also calls for the same approach, but with a difference. According to the Western concept, democratic government enjoys absolute powers and infinite freedom whereas Islamic vicegerency is bound by Allah’s commandments.

The Holy Qur’an states the pre-requisites of the above-said collective vicegerency in clear terms: “They (Muslims) conduct their affairs by mutual consultation”. (42:38)

The distinctive feature of Islamic system of life revealed in this verse is that all their collective affairs are conducted through consultation. Besides narrating this distinct feature, it carries the emphasis of Allah’s commandment. It is forbidden for this reason to conduct any collective affair without consultation.

This commandment is widely generalized, as no specific form of Shura (Consultation) has been determined. The reason being that Islam’s injunctions are meant for the whole universe and for all times to come. Had any particular method been prescribed, it could not have been universal and perpetual. Options have been kept open – whether all people be consulted or only their representatives? Should the representatives be elected through common franchise or by the gentry? Whether elections should be countrywide or in the capital city only? Should the representation be through proper election or only such people be selected whose representative character is already established and known? Should the parliament be unicameral or bicameral? These are the questions to which pre-determined reply does not suit uniformly to every society, period of history and civilization. It would differ in different situations and a variety of forms can be adopted along with changing situations. Therefore, the (Islamic) Shari‘ah has neither prescribed any particular form nor placed ban on other. Nevertheless the following three factors have been stipulated in principle by the aforesaid verse and by its explanatory traditions (Ahadith):

No collective affair of Muslims should be conducted without consultation. This approach strikes at the very roots of kingship because appointment of head is always the most important matter among the governmental affairs. If counselling is compulsory in all other matters, how can anybody’s becoming head of the state through sheer force (and without general consent) be valid? Similarly, it forbids dictatorship as well because dictatorship means despotism and that negates Shura (Consultation). Likewise, in view of this commandement, the authority to suspend the constitution temporarily or permanently cannot be conferred upon the head of the state, because during that suspension period he will work with absolute authority, which is forbidden.

All persons concerned with a collective matter should engage in counseling.

Counseling should be independent, indiscriminate and sincere. Getting a vote or a counsel under duress or temptation amounts to no counseling.

A constitution must invariably contain these three principles of Shari‘ah irrespective of other details. No room should be left for the government to ever function without the counsel of the people or their trusted representatives. It should suggest a system of elections wherein the consent of the whole nation is obtained. It should eliminate all those factors due to which it becomes possible to get votes from the people or from their representatives under threat, deception or temptation.

The above note is an effort to briefly highlight what Sayyid Mawdudi had to opine concerning governance under Islamic System. He has copiously dealt with the subject in his vast literary works. The most important of these appears to me is “Islamic Riyasat” rendered also into English under the title “Islamic State” [contact: IPS, Block-19, Nasr Chambers, F-7 Markaz, Islamabad, http://www.ips.org.pk/ - www.ips.org.pk . for a copy if so desired.]

I have my own understanding and views of why Mawardi and Ghazali could not openly entertain the idea of popular democratic rule. Sure they concentrated more on the possible proper shape of governance, as well as persuading the all powerful Khulafa to give back to public what was due and ensure justice in collective matters. You have rightly noted that the Ummah (rather the whole humanity) was locked up with a governing system that was ruler – captured. Even the public then would not have accepted the shape that you call people – centered.

Regards,

M. Haq


Question:

Assalamualaikomm Ustazz

I want to know that the selection of leader in Islam and the leadership characteristic in Islam - especially for nation leader. I know that Islam select the leader by an Elective Responsibility not by a Selection Affair.

Can you tell me the comparative between these two system in Islam sight?

Iskandar Zulkarnain Bin Bahzan
30, Jalan Emas11, Taman Sri Skudai
Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Takzim 81300
Malaysia

Answer:

WaAlaikum Assalam dear Iskandar Zulkarnain, thank you for contacting JI.

Islam does not strictly suggest one particular way of making a leader. Whether we elect a person through vote - general franchise - or accept the consensus of some special intellectual group, or the passing leader makes his good judgment and nominates a suitable person for the post, will make no difference, provided:

1. the person elected or selected enjoys the common support of majority;
2. that he rules / governs according to the Shariah and through consultation;
3. and accepts people’s verdict, if they decide to dismiss him through a majority vote or some other legal form of expression.

Look at the mode of installation of the four right-guided Caliphs – Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (R.A.). Everyone has a different pattern of coming to power. But all ruled according to the Commands of the Qur’an and Sunnah. They ruled in consultation with ahle Hall wal Aqd. And they always held themselves accountable before the people for all their policies and decisions. That was the true spirit of democracy, and provides guidelines for Muslims to follow.
Remember, the Islamic democracy is different from the Western democracy, because here the Law-Giver and final Authority is Allah, and not the people. People can only install and dismiss and government, but can not press their will to be made law, until it is in conformity with or derived from the Divine Commands - as contained in the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunnah.

Wassalam,

 M. Haq

http://www.jamaat.org/qa/democracy.html#top - Top

http://www.jamaat.org/feedback/qa.html">Ask the Ameer Questions...

The Secretary General
Mansura, Multan Road, Lahore, Pakistan.
Ph: 92-42-5419520-4 Fax: 92-42-5419505
Email: mailto:%20info@jamaat.org - info@jamaat.org


For suggestions to improve this website:
Email: mailto:webmaster@jamaat.org - webmaster@jamaat.org



Posted By: Suleyman
Date Posted: 25 April 2005 at 2:33pm

Es_Selam'un Aleykum,

 Please take a look at that book,it works for understanding the issue...Jazak Allah Khair...

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=496&PN=3 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=496& PN=3



Posted By: Brother123
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 9:48pm

 

 Democracy is man made by the kaffirs.

Democracy aim is to separate Islam from state. Through any means.   

Islam is complete. Islam is implemented in every thing we do.  Even in politics and economics.

During the height of communism some people claiming to be Muslims were saying communism is compatible with Islam. In order to aid their communist Russian masters. Some became fooled by them and we know what happened in communist counties were Islam was banned.

Like wise now some people claiming  to be Muslims. Are at the services of their terrorist western Christian masters.

The west what ever it took it tried to force it on other nations. Through terror, murder and rape.

 When it took on Christianity it did they same. Went  round terrorising people to become Christians. Like in Abu gharaib were Muslims have been tortured to say they reject Islam.

The Christians    west was terrorising the world and  Islam came and it blocked western terror to the east. So these terrorists Christian democrats went west to the terrorise the people of the American continent. Killing many of the men and raping the women to breed their Christians babies. Like in Iraqi prisons. And they used small pox to wipe out the Indians and now they use depleted uranium on Afghanistan and Iraq to cause cancer and birth defects. Babies born with two head, eyes missing, limbs deformed. Couples having difficulty conceiving.

How evil these forces of democracy are. Shows how evil man can be when he makes up his own rules and his own laws.

 3 million Vietnamese died due to American democratic terror. Poor Vietnamese children with napalm burning into their skins helplessly trying to escape democratic terror.

Democracy is terrorism. Its foundations were built on terror and racism.

People were terrorised if they did not accept democracy. The founding fathers of democracy in America said All men are created equal. And only white people were men. The blacks and coloured were regarded as animals and treated as such.

Its foundations are rotten. Its foundations are terrorist and racist. It will remain terrorist. Shariah is superior and will remain superior.

 

The laws of Shariah prohibit torturing a baby to get her father to confess. These laws never change under any circumstances

The laws of democracy change. we have their leaders on TV saying any means should be used against Mujahideen. Even  if torturing a Muslims small baby girl can be used and should be used to make her Muslim father confess.

Allah has exposed democracy for what it is when Muslims favoured democracy over Shariah.

 If  the Prophet (peace be upon him) alive they would have tried to capture him and torture him and his family and the Sahabah.

Democratic turkey imprisons Sisters for wearing Hijab at university. These people say  they are Muslim and democratic.  The Prophet if he was alive he would wage war on democratic turkey.

 The real nature of democracy has becoming more and more apparent every day in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unarmed Village in Afghanistan were bombed and then helicopter gunship were sent to randomly kill men, women and children. 

Why is this done?

In order to terrorise the Muslims to surrender their way of life. To terrorise the Muslims to accept democracy and leave 90 percent of Islam.

They want every Muslim country to see the terror they inflict so they bow down to democracy. And a Muslim only bows to Allah.

 

 This punishment is because Muslims were fooled thinking democracy was good and now Allah has exposed the nature of democracy

Democracy was founded on terror, racism, murder, torture and rape.  The leaders of democracy used to say Every human is created equal. But the black and  coloured were not included in this. Its foundations are rotten and it is rotten and those who call to  some thing Rotten.

It is something rotten that is coated to appear good. When the coating disappears its reality shows and one needs to spit it out.

Islam came and its people were terrorised. Even the terror of the pagans was less than the terror of democracy.

They the forces of democracy are the forces of terror but they call the forces of Islam that, because it is in their nature to lie.

They call this a crusade against terror. Previous conflicts with the Muslim world they called crusades on terror to. That’s when they captured Jerusalem and went round killing men , women and children. Until their horses were ankle deep in Muslim blood. And if that was not enough. They wanted to eat the Muslim babies. So they roasted them . Probably alive and screaming on the spit like they roast their pig and after cooking them they ate them. drank wine and laughed and raped their mothers.

In Muslim Spain the same thing. Raped, tortured and terrorised the Muslims.  And do you know why they were successful in their terror?

Because they were aided by traitors who called themselves Muslims.

Just like now they are being aided by traitors. Democracy brought in Afghanistan and Iraq its terror and its porn.

Those who call for democracy are not Muslims but they are the enemies of the Muslims. They sell their Islam for a small price. And they want others to sell their Islam too.

The kaffir Kamal Atturk  was a Jew who pretended to be a pious Muslim. And you can look at what he did in turkey.

 Now you have in democratic Turkish. Men and women drinking alcohol, fornicating and zina.    Transvestites and homosexuality is every were in public in turkey. Naked men and women on Turkish beaches. Women banned from wearing hijab in government places. Alochol every were. the same dieases as the other democrasys. This is what happens with democracy.  Infact democratic turkey has lead the way to ban parts of Hijab like the Hijab.

Just imagine what would happen if the Prophet (peace be upon him) went with his wives to the democratic turkish goverment buildinsg liek universities. The forces of democrasy will attack him and his wives.

In fact they would not get such an opportunity becase The Madina state of the Prophet (peace be upon him) would wage war on democratic turkey and liberate it from the terror of democracy and bring it to the peace of Islam.

 

Allahu Akbar Allahu Akbar Allahu Akbar

THE MUNAFICS WILL BE IN THE HOTEST PART OF THE HELLFIRE AND THEY WILL REMAIN THERE FOREVER.

DEMOCRASY LIKE COMMUNISM WILL CRUMBLE ONE DAY.

The light of Islam will never estinguish no matter how much the enemies of Islam try estinguish it www.shariahway.com



Posted By: kim!
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 10:49pm

 

"Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World"

by Fatima Mernissi; Perseus Books (Current Publisher: Perseus Publishing), 1992

   http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98670111 - http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98670111

The whole book is at this link. Hopefully you can read it - I cannot because it isn't allowed to be opened in Australia. (?)

It's a great book. Tell me - without democracy, how does an Islamic country get rid of a bad leader?

Kim...



Posted By: kim!
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 10:53pm
Originally posted by ummziba

 

You cannot rely on Muslims all being 'good' Muslims in a voting situation.  People will vote for how they want things to be.  What if the un-Islamic thing wins over in an election?  How is this compatible with Islam?  A democratic Islamic society is liable to move more and more away from Islam if the people are not completely submitters to the Almighty Sustainer.

 

You can't depend on them being good Muslims in a non-voting situation either. Look at Saddam Hussein.

If you EDUCATE people and ENCOURAGE them to THINK and DISCUSS and ASK QUESTIONS, then they are more likely to vote the "right" way. Give them the chance to behave in t a civilised, mature manner and they probably will.

Crush them under a non-democratic dictatorship and all you will get are animals clawing and murderig their way to the top and a bunch of sheep below.

Do sheep _really_ go to heaven?

Kim... 



Posted By: kim!
Date Posted: 11 May 2005 at 10:59pm

http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/demokratie.htm - http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/demokratie. htm

Democracy.

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - this is a quote by the former British prime minister Winston Churchill. "

 

etc

Kim...

 



Posted By: ZamanH
Date Posted: 12 May 2005 at 12:14pm

 have heard many Muslims say that democracy is not compatible with Islam.  For example, what if the majority of people decide that they want something that is un-Islamic (for example, banning hijab).  Then, this majority votes for the un-Islamic thing and wins (because that is how democracy works). 

If the legislature is made answerable to sharia-conforming judiciary, the problem can be solved, I guess. The judiciary in turn should be controlled by knowledgeable religious persons with no interference form the govt.



-------------
An enemy of an enemy is a fickle friend.
There will be more women in hell than men.
..for persecution is worse than the slaughter of the enemy..(Quran 2:191)
Heaven lies under mother's feet


Posted By: kim!
Date Posted: 12 May 2005 at 4:54pm

Besides, what does it matter if the majority of people vote against making hijab compulsory? Those who want to wear it will still wear it, and those who don't will have to deal with whatever consequences occur in the "hereafter". It's their choice.

In a democracy, one assumes there would be a lot of public and open argument and debate about such a topic before anyone decided to have a vote on the subject. (Here in Australia, such a vote is called a "referendum" and for any referendum to pass, it needs at least 2/3 majority, not just 50%)

In a democracy, debates would be open, free and out in the public. Anyone could participate and EVERYONE could learn.

Kim...

 



Posted By: kim!
Date Posted: 12 May 2005 at 5:00pm

Thanks Suleyman. I note this on democracy from the link you sent:

"Democracy in Islam

The above explanation of the term Khilafat also makes it abundantly clear that no individual or dynasty or class can be Khalifah, but that the authority of caliphate is bestowed on any community which accepts the principles of Tawhid and Risalat. In such a society, each individual shares the God given caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Islam.

Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of God and in this respect all individuals are equal. No one can deprive anyone of his rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be established in accordance with the will of these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individuals delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the Government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will carry out the duties of the calilphate on their behalf; and when he loses this confidence he will have to relinquish his office. In this respect the political system in Islam as perfect a democracy as ever can be.

What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy is that while the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty the former rests on the principle of popular Khilafat. In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in God and the people are His caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to follow and obey the laws(Shari ‘ah) given by God through His Prophet. In one the Government undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other the Government and the people alike have to do the will of God. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is sub-servient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of God and within the limits prescribed by Him."

 

So democracy in a completely Islamic state should be EASIER to run than in an ordinary Western country. You follow God's laws, but encourage education, discussion and voting.

However, in the West we cannot just say "we follow God's laws". Which God? Which set of laws? Our countries are FILLED with people of different religions and creeds. WHOSE traditions and laws should we follow? Answer - we CAN'T. We have to decide between ourselves what is moral and just WITHOUT the help of having a God to decide it for us. 

Kim...



Posted By: Brother123
Date Posted: 13 May 2005 at 11:55am
Those women whose alinks you ask Muslims to follow are enemies of Islam. They are femanists who want Muslim women to leave Islam but after realising they cant get them to leave Islam they try to confuse them to leave parts of Islam.

When people advertise their articles then we know what tehir intensions are lol. They reveal their inner coat.

Which GOD?

There is only one GOD.

www.shariahway.com




Posted By: Suleyman
Date Posted: 13 May 2005 at 11:58am
Originally posted by kim!

Thanks Suleyman. I note this on democracy from the link you sent:

"Democracy in Islam

The above explanation of the term Khilafat also makes it abundantly clear that no individual or dynasty or class can be Khalifah, but that the authority of caliphate is bestowed on any community which accepts the principles of Tawhid and Risalat. In such a society, each individual shares the God given caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Islam.

Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of God and in this respect all individuals are equal. No one can deprive anyone of his rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be established in accordance with the will of these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individuals delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the Government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will carry out the duties of the calilphate on their behalf; and when he loses this confidence he will have to relinquish his office. In this respect the political system in Islam as perfect a democracy as ever can be.

What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy is that while the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty the former rests on the principle of popular Khilafat. In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in God and the people are His caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to follow and obey the laws(Shari ‘ah) given by God through His Prophet. In one the Government undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other the Government and the people alike have to do the will of God. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is sub-servient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of God and within the limits prescribed by Him."

 

So democracy in a completely Islamic state should be EASIER to run than in an ordinary Western country. You follow God's laws, but encourage education, discussion and voting.

However, in the West we cannot just say "we follow God's laws". Which God? Which set of laws? Our countries are FILLED with people of different religions and creeds. WHOSE traditions and laws should we follow? Answer - we CAN'T. We have to decide between ourselves what is moral and just WITHOUT the help of having a God to decide it for us. 

Kim...

 My regards...



-------------


Posted By: kim!
Date Posted: 15 May 2005 at 5:55am
Originally posted by Brother123

Those women whose alinks you ask Muslims to follow are enemies of Islam. They are femanists who want Muslim women to leave Islam but after realising they cant get them to leave Islam they try to confuse them to leave parts of Islam.

When people advertise their articles then we know what tehir intensions are lol. They reveal their inner coat.

Which GOD?

There is only one GOD.

www.shariahway.com




*sigh*  WHEN will you men stop being so frightened of women that you have to keep abusing them?

Fatimah Mernissi is a feminist AND an Islamic scholar! She tries to show people that being a Muslim and giving women their rights AND even having a democracy is possible and desirable.

But then I suppose you didn't even bother to read the link that I sent. Just like no one read "Satanic Verses".

It's amazing how people are so ready to condemn instead of learning.

Kim...
PS apparently, "Satanic Verses" is a monumentally BORING book that almost no one would have read if no one had advertised it by protesting against it.




Print Page | Close Window