democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[khushal]

Shura isn't democracy. In a shura, the final say is still given to the Amir, and the opinions of the representatives are often not given equal weight. Shuras rarely involve voting, and even when they do they aren't binding.

I didn't say its democracy, remember I said democracies don't exist because they don't work. I said its democratic. Shura means consultation which basically is democratic by definition. The Amir is required to consult before making a decision and the decision cant violate Islamic law. It is very similar to the way the US governs. The president has executive powers but those decisions cant violate the constitution which is why many of Trumps executive actions are challenged by people arguing they are unconstitutional.

Democracy is an invention of Greece. It's a foreign imposition upon our lands and cultures. Not every aspect of democracy is bad, but we have no need for a flawed foreign system that introduces more problems than it solves.

Just like we rejected communism before the rest of the world realized it was trash, we should reject democracy, especially when even Americans are losing faith in it.

No its not. Your own Zazia Tribe is democratic. Tribal societies are mostly democratic including the Native American Tribes.

[ذو الفقار]

Islam is not against democracy. Shura is democratic.

Shura and democracy aren't equivalent. Shura only means consultation. Islam enjoins consultation in matters that are open, i.e., not already predetermined by the sacred Texts.

From the Islamic perspective, democracy can never be absolute. It has to be acknowledged that God is the Supreme Authority and legislative power rests solely with Him.

[ذو الفقار]

The Amir is required to consult before making a decision

Strictly speaking, the Amir is not "required" to consult. He is only encouraged to do so. Any consultative body will never have executive authority in an Islamic state, only the function of making recommendations to the executive.

[ذو الفقار]

People that don't vote are immoral since they are intentionally staying silent when given the chance to speak up on what should be or should not be done. When evil triumphs and you stayed silent given the opportunity to speak against it, then you are complicit in the actions that are taken.

Evil triumphs when good people stay silent.

Casting a ballot means you are responsible if your candidate is elected. Then you share a degree of responsibility for what he does once in power. Since I reject the system in principle, how can I hypocritically participate in it?

Unless there is a candidate who is openly saying that if given power he will do nothing but serve the will of God, I don't see any scenario in which voting for anyone else is "moral" from my religious perspective.

In my particular situation of being a Canadian citizen, I can definitely not vote for any of the existing political parties or candidates. Similarly, in most other countries the situation is the same, you cannot vote for any party or candidate unless he is pledging to purely implement Islam and do nothing else.

But in order to even be a candidate in today's so-called democratic systems you have to first accept the constitution and the legitimacy of the system. I do not see a single constitution in the whole world which is Islamic except for the constitution of Saudi Arabia - the Holy Quraan.

[Firdousi]

Islam is not against democracy. Shura is democratic.

Democracy is overrated. The disgusting way democracy politicians behave, lying, selling their core values for the sake of votes,.. they remind of clowns. Not even in dictatorships politicians behave in such ways.

And Shuras are not democratic institutions, but consultation councils. It might have some democratic traits but in general it has nothing to do with democracy.

[Firdousi]

My question is: should the Islamic world adopt liberal democracy? Is it really that good? Do we want our people to become arrogant, cynic and self-loathing like the Western people due the heavy individualist influences that makes people believe they are something so special? Why so many Muslims hate democracy while at the same time migrate into Democratic countries?

All this reminds of this quote by Ali Al Wardi: "If the Arabs had the choice between two states, secular and religious, they would vote for the religious and flee to the secular" lol

[ذو الفقار]

My question is: should the Islamic world adopt liberal democracy? Is it really that good? Do we want our people to become arrogant, cynic and self-loathing like the Western people due the heavy individualist influences that makes people believe they are something so special? Why so many Muslims hate democracy while at the same time migrate into Democratic countries?

All this reminds of this quote by Ali Al Wardi: "If the Arabs had the choice between two states, secular and religious, they would vote for the religious and flee to the secular" lol

Muslims act hypocritical. They will confess that there shouldn't be immorality and nudity in society, but they simply cannot give up on their bad habits of listening to music, watching dances, etc. Most Muslims are only sympathetic to Islamic movements insofar as they stand for social justice and are against corruption. But most Muslims simply cannot digest the moral program of Islam which will prohibit many of their bad habits. Hence, the ordinary Muslims fear the "Mulla" and this perpetuates the cycle of immoral, corrupt government in every single Muslim country.

The Muslims want to go to the secular, liberal and democratic West purely for the better standard of living. I don't think most of the Muslim immigrants are coming here because they want to watch dances and get drunk. If they can afford to immigrate, they can afford to indulge in these immoral activities in their own countries, albeit maybe not always openly.

[ذو الفقار]

One of the worst aspects of democracy that I have witnessed while in Pakistan is the polarization based on political parties. Then and even now there was a huge polarization between Nawaz vs Imran. So much of the national discourse is consumed by this meaningless political rivalry. Democracy ends up encouraging partisanship and dividing society. Just look at America's classic "Democrat vs Republican" dichotomy. They are essentially the same neoliberal ideas.

The Holy Quraan condemns this idea of "Hizbiya" or splitting up into parties and factions. It isn't productive and is one of the more harmful aspects of democracy. Even George Washington pleaded with his countrymen not to start creating political parties after the American Revolution was over.

Political parties become entrenched institutions that only care about the game of power and not actually genuinely working to solve the myriad of problems in the country. They become like sports teams and not actually open to dissenting ideas.

And in our age, despite the facade of democracy, everything is dominated by money. There can never be true democracy because of the corrupting factor of money in politics. After all, part of an open political system is not just the freedom to vote for the party you like but the freedom to give your money to it. Then the voice of the rich becomes more amplified and the dominant one in the mainstream parties.

[ذو الفقار]

Yet another strong criticism of democracy, especially from my perspective as a religious minority, is the principle of "majority rule".

The divisions and hatreds that exist in society are naturally reflected in politics where democracy is operating. Just look at India, despite it supposedly being a secular state (but not a liberal one), democracy naturally means that the ordinary Hindu's disgust with Islam and Muslims will be mirrored in the corridors of power. The rise of far-right parties around the world whose main sticking point is "Muslims are bad" cannot be successful if the ordinary people were absolutely fine with us Muslims. But the bitter truth is we are the most hated people not only in America, but in Europe, in Russia, in China, in India, in southeast Asia, and even in sub-Saharan Africa.

As a minority, it is in our interests that our host countries remain ultimately more constitutionally liberal and secular than democratic. Without democracy, Hitler could not have risen in Germany. Without democracy, an open hater of Islam like Yogi would not be the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, nor Modi the Prime Minister of India (nor Trump the president of USA).

Friends, what to speak of the non-Muslim countries, even in Muslim countries themselves most so called "Muslims" cannot be trusted to respect the more religious Muslims who are always a minority. Democracy has given rise to fascist Awami League in Bangladesh, and there was the anti-Islamic ANP government recently in NWFP.

[UnknownUser]

democracy or dictatorship, in any systems, for it to not collapse on it's own, you need good leaders working for the greater wellbeing of the society.

Dictatorship is only bad, when most of the time the leaders aren't yielding positive results for society. Cyrus the Great was a dictator, so was Xerxes, Alexander, Ramses, etc. yet these leaders administered/fostered great civilizations/societies.

[Kakar-Wardak]

Which muslim majority country has liberal Democracy? Pretty much all of them are dictatorships or authoritarian, even this so called democracy in Pakistan is a joke they can't even hold fair elections and the true power lies with unelected army generals.

Maybe Tunisia is trying to become a leader in terms of democracy but they have no choice their whole economy is based on pandering to western tourist to come and spend a few dollars on them.

[Firdousi]

democracy or dictatorship, in any systems, for it to not collapse on it's own, you need good leaders working for the greater wellbeing of the society.

Dictatorship is only bad, when most of the time the leaders aren't yielding positive results for society. Cyrus the Great was a dictator, so was Xerxes, Alexander, Ramses, etc. yet these leaders administered/fostered great civilizations/societies.

There are no definitive or best political system. All this claims are pure BS. It takes root in all the optimism created in the West when the Cold War ended.

When the URSS was defeated all the Western nations were immersed in a hilarious atmosphere of optimism. Western nations were all the day talking about the "End of History" and the "Peace Dividends". Now we realize that democracy is not the definitive political system.

From my own experience studying history I have come to the conclusion that what matters is not freedom of speech, right to demonstrate or elections. What matters is economic development. If people don't have jobs, projects or stability, they will burn the world. Democracies are not inmunes to this reality thats why in 1933 Hitler became leader of Germany. Thats why the "democratic" Roman republic collapsed and an authoritarian system was created by Julio Cesar and Octavio. Thats why now, when the Western world is crumbling and there is a raise in authoritarian forces due to the financial crisis, the decay of Western hegemony, moral decay and free borders.

Its all about money. Its all about economy not democracy.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yet another strong criticism of democracy, especially from my perspective as a religious minority, is the principle of "majority rule".

The divisions and hatreds that exist in society are naturally reflected in politics where democracy is operating. Just look at India, despite it supposedly being a secular state (but not a liberal one), democracy naturally means that the ordinary Hindu's disgust with Islam and Muslims will be mirrored in the corridors of power. The rise of far-right parties around the world whose main sticking point is "Muslims are bad" cannot be successful if the ordinary people were absolutely fine with us Muslims. But the bitter truth is we are the most hated people not only in America, but in Europe, in Russia, in China, in India, in southeast Asia, and even in sub-Saharan Africa.

As a minority, it is in our interests that our host countries remain ultimately more constitutionally liberal and secular than democratic. Without democracy, Hitler could not have risen in Germany. Without democracy, an open hater of Islam like Yogi would not be the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, nor Modi the Prime Minister of India (nor Trump the president of USA).

Friends, what to speak of the non-Muslim countries, even in Muslim countries themselves most so called "Muslims" cannot be trusted to respect the more religious Muslims who are always a minority. Democracy has given rise to fascist Awami League in Bangladesh, and there was the anti-Islamic ANP government recently in NWFP.

That's not a criticism of democracy, because the secular liberal policies you speak of exists in most of the democracies we're discussing. Democracy is not mob rule,it's people electing officials that work for their interests. India is simply a oligarchy where certain social groups maintain power at the behest of everyone else.

Also how would us Muslims treat minorities? I recall you advocating for harassing and tormenting people who suffer from mental illnesses such as Gender Dysphoria....you saw no intermediate option, like recognizing these people suffer from a disorder and should be treated accordingly.....rather yoi advocated violence and harassment like they're not even human for things they may have had no choice over .

But I digress ...people who have power abusing power is just a consequence of people being people. Democracy at least allows a chance to repel against such forces. I live in Trump's America and I have a pretty good quality of life.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]Muslims act hypocritical. They will confess that there shouldn't be immorality and nudity in society, but they simply cannot give up on their bad habits of listening to music, watching dances, etc. Most Muslims are only sympathetic to Islamic movements insofar as they stand for social justice and are against corruption. But most Muslims simply cannot digest the moral program of Islam which will prohibit many of their bad habits. Hence, the ordinary Muslims fear the "Mulla" and this perpetuates the cycle of immoral, corrupt government in every single Muslim country.

So corruption exists because we Muslims value art and music, and not because people who extort power have poor ethics about equity and welfare? Dude; behind the jargon and pandering to Pious vocabulary your reasoning is absolute nonsense and shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Art is not a "bad habit"

Art and Music is what enriches the life of society and culture

Art and Music has never been shown to destroy people's families or rob banks or kidnap peple or torture them.

I'm not making all art and music equal, or say that anything claimed as art means it is art ...but if art and music was the reason why people do bad things We wouldn't have peoplike Nouman Ali Khan philandering and sendinhg nude pics of himself on snapchat.

It's not the moral program we cannot digest, it's fraudulent religion peddlers claiming they represent a moral program when they have no idea what they're talking about that we reject.

[ذو الفقار]

That's not a criticism of democracy, because the secular liberal policies you speak of exists in most of the democracies we're discussing.

It's a criticism of democracy not liberalism or secularism. Democracy is not synonymous with liberalism. There can be non-democratic liberal states, and non-liberal democratic states.

India is simply a oligarchy where certain social groups maintain power at the behest of everyone else.

It isn't formally an oligarchy, but formally a democracy, and meets the criteria of democracy. One could argue that virtually every state in the world is an oligarchy.

Also how would us Muslims treat minorities? I recall you advocating for harassing and tormenting people who suffer from mental illnesses such as Gender Dysphoria....you saw no intermediate option, like recognizing these people suffer from a disorder and should be treated accordingly.....rather yoi advocated violence and harassment like they're not even human for things they may have had no choice over .

I am speaking on behalf of the Muslim perspective and interests. Democracy is bad for us especially in places where we are a minority. I don't care about any other group but Muslims. By definition, non-Muslims in an Islamic state will be treated as second class citizens. There's no denying that fact.

Democracy at least allows a chance to repel against such forces. I live in Trump's America and I have a pretty good quality of life.

Democracy doesn't benefit a vulnerable minority that isn't liked by the majority community. In democracy minority is always at a disadvantage. In France and many other European countries, Muslims' rights to practice religion are slowly being eroded. Muslims themselves would never vote for the policies that are being implemented there. They only succeed because the non-Muslim majority are passionately in favor of them. Even a liberal constitution is no guarantee as constitutions can be amended. Likewise, a principled judiciary intent on protecting people's rights is no guarantee either, as the judges are appointed by the forces of democracy.

You may have a good quality of life in America, but that is your personal matter, as a community the Muslims have become more hated than homos and other traditionally discriminated and marginalized minorities like Blacks. Similarly, in India the position of Muslims is even more deplorable than that of Dalits, courtesy of democracy.