What's new

Islam and Democracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ever used a software but alas it's the stripped down version just expired after 15 days or so!!
Thats what democracy is. From my point of view:
Democracy is a demo form of government
 
. .
Change is coming to Islam - Middle East - World - The Times of India

Last week, I took the Euro Star from St Pancras International station in London to Paris. Just after clearing immigration, I was stopped by a security officer. Nothing unusual in that, except I was the only one he stopped and questioned in literally thousands of passengers. I had some time to kill so I stood beside him to watch who else he interrogates . In 40 minutes, he only stopped two other people. The first was an old man clearly recognisable as a Muslim: beard, cap, badly-fitted suit, Arab (I guessed Tunisian) origins. The other was a person who strikes terror in the heart of every security officer: a Muslim woman in hijab.

This is perhaps the most noticeable feature of the passing decade for us Muslims. We are now universally regarded as objects of suspicion and subjects for interrogation.

The main reason behind this is the momentous atrocity that began the Noughties: the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. It is hardly surprising that the last decade has been dominated by the consequences of that attack. Most of the negative as well as positive developments in the Muslim world during the last ten years can be traced to that fateful event.

Terrorism, however, was not new to the Muslim world: it had been a problem before 9/11. In Pakistan , Kashmir, Egypt, and in Palestine, the cycle of sectarian and ideological terror and counter terror had already cost innumerable lives. In Chechnya, Bosnia and occupied Palestine, Muslims were victims of what can only be described as state-sponsored terrorism. And the vast majority of the victims of this internal and external violence were Muslims.

But the 9/11 atrocity did create a new chapter. To begin with, it compounded a set of problems that existed for some time. For more than a generation , since at least the 'Islamic Revolution' in Iran, the political rhetoric in the Muslim world had been changing from the hyperbole of sabrerattling nationalism to macho militancy seeking to clothe itself in the legitimating mantle of Islam. The response to the 9/11 atrocity, the so-called 'war on terror' , took that tendency to a new height.

The 'war on terror' had a devastating impact both on the external realities of Muslim societies as well as on Muslim consciousnesses. It changed not only the course of history in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also served as a springboard for the revival of the Taliban and the emergence of new militant groups such as the Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia and the radical Shabab in the Horn of Africa. It also laid the foundation for home-grown al-Qaida-inspired terrorism in Europe and America. The hatred of America in the Muslim world, a direct consequence of the 'war on terror' , also became an ideal substitute, in certain circles, for introspection and reflexive thought on the economic, social and political problems of many Muslim countries.

There were other consequences as well. Western reactions to 'Muslim terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforced the negative views of Islam and Muslims. The fear and loathing of Muslims has been an integral part of European consciousness almost from the inception of Islam. Bloody terrorist campaigns by fringe Muslim organisations brought these anti-Islam and anti-Muslim narratives, 'the darker side of Europe' , to the fore. What was conventionally described as 'Orientalism' , a refined literary and scholarly way of ascribing radicalism, backwardness and violence to Muslims, was transformed during the Noughties into what came to be known as 'Islamophobia' : crude, unabashed religious discrimination and racism against Muslims.

Europe has seen a frightening rise in Islamophobia since the July 7, 2005 bombings in London . As 'Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities' , published last week by the Open Society Institute , shows, prejudice and discrimination are the routine, everyday experience of European Muslims in such cities as Antwerp, Berlin, Copenhagen , Paris and Stockholm. Riding on openly anti-Muslim tickets, far-right political parties have made considerable gains all over Europe - from Denmark to Italy, Belgium, Germany and Britain. Even the so-called moderate conservative parties now routinely employ anti-Muslim narratives that tell of an indigenous culture being 'swamped' by 'alien' and 'hostile' Muslims with their fundamentally incompatible attitudes to gender, sexuality and freedom of expression.

The much-vaunted freedom of expression was itself curtailed throughout much of the Muslim world as a result of the 'war on terror' . The outcome was predicted by Anwar Ibrahim, one of the most lucid voices of sanity in the Muslim world, in early 2002. Ibrahim, one-time founder of an Islamic movement and former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, was a major threat to the corrupt regime of the then prime minister, the autocratic Mahathir Muhammad. Mahathir had Ibrahim framed on homosexuality charges, and after a sham trial, sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The development of the 'Anwar phenomenon' , as it came to be known, kept Muslim intellectuals throughout the world gripped for most of the decade.

One consequence of the 9/11 atrocity, said Ibrahim in an open letter written from his prison cell, would be that "the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorise their critics and dissenters" . Indeed, this is exactly what happened in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Iran and many other Muslim countries.


The problem for Muslim societies, Ibrahim explained , was simple: "In the centuries when Islam created civilizations, men of wealth created pious foundations supporting universities and hospitals. Princes competed with one another to patronize scientists, philosophers and men of letters." That was then, now: "bin Laden uses his personal fortune to sponsor terror and murder, not learning and creativity, and to wreak destruction rather than promote creation. Osama bin Laden and his proteges are the children of desperation; they come from countries where political struggle through peaceful means is futile. In many Muslim countries, political dissent is simply illegal."

In many - but not in all. And this is where the dark clouds of the Noughties revealed their silver lining. While the centre of Islam - the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan - was embroiled in strife and turmoil, something very interesting was happening at the periphery. Muslim democratic movements in Indonesia and Turkey made substantial gains. A miracle was performed in Morocco: Islamic personal law was totally changed and transformed . In Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim himself was released in September 2004; and went on to lead the opposition in April 2008 after an election that shattered the absolute dominance of UMNO, the corrupt ruling party of Malaysia.

The 2002 election in Turkey brought the Justice and Development Party (AKP) into power. Led by Recep Tayyip Erdogen, former mayor of Istanbul, the AKP has deep Islamic roots. Both its leaders and the mass of its supporters are committed Muslims . Almost immediately, AKP demonstrated that it was more committed to democracy than any other political party in Turkey.

The AKP used standard Islamic principles to realign Islamic politics towards democracy. Its leaders argued that politics in Islam has to be based on the Qur'anic concept of shura, or consultation, and therefore must be consensual and democratic. They introduced far-reaching reforms: death penalty was abolished, minorities were given more freedom , including the right to their own language education , and various aspects of human rights legislation were put on the statue books.

The AKP even tried to change the law to ensure that the military cannot intervene in the political process. And, as its resounding success in 2007 proved, AKP turned out to be an effective and efficient manager of the economy; it has been credited with being economically the most successful party in Turkey's history. The AKP has proved that Islamic politics need not be the sole preserve of the fanatics and the Mullahs. It can be an effective instrument to establish civic society and a thriving democracy.


Indonesia went through a similar transformation . The first direct presidential election in 2004 was a watershed for the largest republic in the Muslim world. Unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh, where the Islamic movements are marginalised and have never won more than three or four per cent of the votes, the Islamic movements in Indonesia are a mass phenomenon. Organisations like Muhammadiyah , Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Liberal Islam Network (LIN) have followers in scores of millions.

Since the return of democracy in Indonesia, these organisations have argued that Islamic politics is not about establishing a utopian 'Islamic state' where 'the shariah is supreme' but about creating a civic society where accountability, transparency and participatory democracy are the norm. Moreover, the shariah's overemphasis on formality and symbolism has drained it of all ethical and humane dimensions; and as such, it needs to be totally reformulated. Both democracy and Islamic law must evolve from below with the participation of the masses. This is the message that the largely young members of Muhammadiyah and LIN have been promoting in mosques, schools and universities throughout Indonesia. This outlook was the cornerstone of the peaceful settlement in 2005 of the long-running armed conflict in Aceh.

While the Islamic movement in Indonesia is still grappling with ways and means of reformulating the shariah, Morocco has provided a clear lead. The family law in Morocco, known as Moudawana, was based on the traditional Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, polygamy and child custody. Women's groups and enlightened Muslim scholars had been campaigning for decades to change and reform it without much success. But 9/11 and its aftermath provided a new impetus. A special commission , which notably included women, was created with the specific task of producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam. The resulting family law, which was introduced on the statute books in February 2004, sweeps away centuries of bigotry and bias against women.

The new Moudawana allows a woman to contract a marriage without the legal approval of a guardian. Verbal divorce has been outlawed: men now require prior authorisation from a court, and women have exactly the same rights. Women can claim alimony and can be granted custody of their children even if they remarry. Husbands and wives must share property acquired during the marriage. Men are no longer the 'leaders' of the family; both husband and wife share the leadership role. The old custom of favouring male heirs in the sharing of inherited land has also been dropped, making it possible for grandchildren on the daughter's side to inherit from their grandfather, just like grandchildren on the son's side. As for polygamy, it has been all but abolished. Men can take second wives only with the full consent of the first wife and only if they can prove, in a court of law, that they can treat them both with absolute justice - an almost impossible condition.

Every change in the law is justified - chapter and verse - from the Qur'an , and from the examples and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. And every change acquired the consent of the religious scholars. With the exception of the gripes of a few extremists , the new shariah has been widely welcomed, even by the Islamist political organisations. Justice and Development Party described the law as "a pioneering reform" that is "in line with the prescriptions of Islam and with the aims of our religion" .

If the shariah can be changed then anything and everything in the Muslim world is amenable to change. Not least in India, where the efforts of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to declare 'triple talaq' null and void suggest stirrings of a forward movement. But the narrow-minded conservatives , in India as elsewhere, move quasi-statically . For sure, fundamentalism will continue to be with us for some time. But it is totally vacuous, based on nothing more than hateful slogans and, as such, is bound to wither away. Adaptation and emulation of the successful aspects of the Islamic movements in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey will increasingly become the dominant theme. As in the past, so in the future: the centre of the Muslim world will be slowly but surely transformed from the periphery.

By ZIAUDDIN SARDAR London-based author of Desperately Seeking Paradise, Balti Britain: A Provocative Journey Through Asian Britain, and many other books
 
.
Question:

Is Islam compatible with democracy?

Summary Answer:


Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make." Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims. This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law.

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief.

Qur'an (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;" ie. not to anyone else.

Qur'an (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."

Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.

Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper."

Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Obedience is strictly limited to the government drawn only from the pool of believers, not from the broader community.

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and his messenger are free from obligation to the unbelievers..." Muhammad used this "revelation" to dissolve a standing treaty and chase non-Muslims from their homes if they wouldn't accept Islam. This practice would be incompatible with democratic rule, in which everyone is considered equal.

Additional Notes:


To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society."

Islamic law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are set and fixed. There is no need for addition or correction. Neither is there any room for the law of fallible man (particularly non-Muslims). Nor should it take the place of Allah's perfect law, which tells a man everything he needs to know about daily life (down to which hand he should "hold it in" while urinating).

The law of one man, one vote is heretical to Islam. The testimony of a Muslim woman is worth only half that of a man. Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims), and atheists are to be killed outright.

Reform-minded Muslims (who prefer to ignore all of this) instead point to Qur'an (42:38), where the phrase "[Muslims] who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation" is used as evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy. Also recruited to this end is an oft-repeated hadith that has Muhammad saying, "My community will never agree on an error." On this is based the much ballyhooed concept of "ijma" or consensus among Muslims for determining matters of Islamic law.

But ijma, has always been controversial and rarely practiced within Islam. Some interpret it to mean "consensus of the scholars" - having nothing to do with the opinion of the community at large. Even when its legitimacy is recognized, ijma is accepted only as a secondary (or tertiary) form of authority, behind the fiqh councils. Also, it bears pointing out that ijma and consultation are applicable only within the Muslim community (and probably limited to the "consensus" of males).

Muhammad ruled on Allah's authority and did not submit his decisions to the will of the people. Even if the entire world became Muslim overnight, it is highly doubtful that democracy would last, since it would be applicable only to the most mundane of matters not already decided by Islamic law.

As another cleric, Sufi Muhammad, recently put it, "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm

That of course doesn't mean that "Muslims" in a broder sense can't live and prosper in a democracy or create one in their countries, just as long as they free themselves of the poisonous doctrine.
 
Last edited:
.
Question:

Is Islam compatible with democracy?

Summary Answer:


Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make." Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims. This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law.

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief.

Qur'an (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;" ie. not to anyone else.

Qur'an (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."

Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.

Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper."

Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Obedience is strictly limited to the government drawn only from the pool of believers, not from the broader community.

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and his messenger are free from obligation to the unbelievers..." Muhammad used this "revelation" to dissolve a standing treaty and chase non-Muslims from their homes if they wouldn't accept Islam. This practice would be incompatible with democratic rule, in which everyone is considered equal.

Additional Notes:


To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society."

Islamic law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are set and fixed. There is no need for addition or correction. Neither is there any room for the law of fallible man (particularly non-Muslims). Nor should it take the place of Allah's perfect law, which tells a man everything he needs to know about daily life (down to which hand he should "hold it in" while urinating).

The law of one man, one vote is heretical to Islam. The testimony of a Muslim woman is worth only half that of a man. Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims), and atheists are to be killed outright.

Reform-minded Muslims (who prefer to ignore all of this) instead point to Qur'an (42:38), where the phrase "[Muslims] who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation" is used as evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy. Also recruited to this end is an oft-repeated hadith that has Muhammad saying, "My community will never agree on an error." On this is based the much ballyhooed concept of "ijma" or consensus among Muslims for determining matters of Islamic law.

But ijma, has always been controversial and rarely practiced within Islam. Some interpret it to mean "consensus of the scholars" - having nothing to do with the opinion of the community at large. Even when its legitimacy is recognized, ijma is accepted only as a secondary (or tertiary) form of authority, behind the fiqh councils. Also, it bears pointing out that ijma and consultation are applicable only within the Muslim community (and probably limited to the "consensus" of males).

Muhammad ruled on Allah's authority and did not submit his decisions to the will of the people. Even if the entire world became Muslim overnight, it is highly doubtful that democracy would last, since it would be applicable only to the most mundane of matters not already decided by Islamic law.

As another cleric, Sufi Muhammad, recently put it, "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy."

TheReligionofPeace - Myths of Islam

That of course doesn't mean that "Muslims" in a broder sense can't live and prosper in a democracy or create one in their countries, just as long as they free themselves of the poisonous doctrine.
:rofl:

You really need to understand Islam!

You have wasted your time researching.

Or may be you are in the bad habit of extrapolating just anything to your benefit?!

As an appetizer, please google 'Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) Last Sermon', i am sure it will help your brain!
 
.
Unbeliever@ don't indulge yourself on semantics and labels or you will get a hangover btw a hint dumb-wit -> Islamic political system is based on Shura (mutual consultation).
 
.
Unbeliever@ don't indulge yourself on semantics and labels or you will get a hangover btw a hint dumb-wit -> Islamic political system is based on Shura (mutual consultation).

Exactly..... which means "democracy" is NOT compatible with Islam. Thanks for calling him stupid and then agreeing with him. :cheers:
 
.
Exactly..... which means "democracy" is NOT compatible with Islam. Thanks for calling him stupid and then agreeing with him. :cheers:

How does that prove Islam and democracy are incompatible ?
 
. .
well the context of that reference wasn't how you took it..his post was naive and fallacious, and furthermore, to a great extent, shaped by a sort of dogmatic label-orientation so does your. btw define democracy.
 
. .
Let me answer what is NOT democracy:

Sharia Law.

I don't see how in hell it's possible. Pakistan implements what level of Sharia law? :lol:
First let me ask you this, what is Sharia Law? or what is your understanding of Sharia Law?
 
.
You really need to understand Islam!

Oh I understand very well. Better than most believers in fact.. (aside from the taquiya masters who understand, but pretend not to)
I can see quit clearly what this ideology was thought out to achieve. And its doing one hell of a job too.

Anyway, will you actually responed to the content of my post for once or are you so intellectually handicapped that you are only capable of trowing around apologetic bullsh't?
The Qu'ran quotes look familiar, right? So very direct question: Was God having a bad day or why do you think you can dismiss them?


Do words only mean what you want them to mean when you want them to mean that? If so, that is what is commonly called 'extreme stupidity' or 'insanity'...

You have wasted your time researching.

Research and actually learning something is never a waste, but its no suprise you wouldn't get that..

Or may be you are in the bad habit of extrapolating just anything to your benefit?!

Even if I were, that is not necessary at all with Islam. Muhammed wrote it all down to make my case for me, verbatim. And his followers do the rest to prove that it actually does count what is written and its not all methaphor..

You don't want to admit that because believers don't consern themselves with reality much, only with wishful thinking.

As an appetizer, please google 'Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) Last Sermon', i am sure it will help your brain!

No thanks. I read enough bullsh*t for one day. One sermon wouldn't change anything anyway, since the Qu'ran (and therefore Allah in your mind) still says what it says.
Gods (and prophets) tend to contradict themselves, I know. But would you as a Muslim put the words of the messenger above those of the creator? No? Well than what Mohammed said somewhere is irrelevant, since Allah spilled it all out quit plainly as the examples above show you..

@apophenia: your response is already adressed in my first post (under Addtional Notes)..
READ IT not just the first two senteces.. -.-
 
.
your perception toward Islam is merely dictated by one-sided interest i.e. marginalizing it. don't troll..
 
.
Oh I understand very well. Better than most believers in fact.. (aside from the taquiya masters who understand, but pretend not to)
I can see quit clearly what this ideology was thought out to achieve. And its doing one hell of a job too.

Anyway, will you actually responed to the content of my post for once or are you so intellectually handicapped that you are only capable of trowing around apologetic bullsh't?
The Qu'ran quotes look familiar, right? So very direct question: Was God having a bad day or why do you think you can dismiss them?


Do words only mean what you want them to mean when you want them to mean that? If so, that is what is commonly called 'extreme stupidity' or 'insanity'...



Research and actually learning something is never a waste, but its no suprise you wouldn't get that..



Even if I were, that is not necessary at all with Islam. Muhammed wrote it all down to make my case for me, verbatim. And his followers do the rest to prove that it actually does count what is written and its not all methaphor..

You don't want to admit that because believers don't consern themselves with reality much, only with wishful thinking.



No thanks. I read enough bullsh*t for one day. One sermon wouldn't change anything anyway, since the Qu'ran (and therefore Allah in your mind) still says what it says.
Gods (and prophets) tend to contradict themselves, I know. But would you as a Muslim put the words of the messenger above those of the creator? No? Well than what Mohammed said somewhere is irrelevant, since Allah spilled it all out quit plainly as the examples above show you..

@apophenia: your response is already adressed in my first post (under Addtional Notes)..
READ IT not just the first two senteces.. -.-

You are lamer than i thought!

And you are also guud at ducking!

They way you have rejected my offer to go through another 'research' (which you claim never goes wasted) tells me that you are here just to troll and flame.

Well guud luck with it.

As for the verbatim thingy, dude, i never knew your brain of so dumb that it is simply incapable of READING SOMETHING WHILE KEEPING IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT!!

i read your name in ISOLATION, you might seem insane to me, but if i'll keep it withing the parameters and see it in context of the course of discussion, it might start making some sense, how's that? Oh, sorry, you wouldnt be getting any of that!
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom