democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[ذو الفقار]

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.

Art and music enriching life is a subjective claim. I remember reading somewhere that the key difference between Christian and Islamic expression is that whereas Christianity has historically expressed itself in visual arts, like the cathedrals with stained glass and the classic paintings, Islam has been expressed in auditory terms, i.e., the spellbinding recitation of the Holy Quraan, the call of the Adhaan. Music is actually an attempt to create a sense of awe or euphoria that cannot be achieved by the vocalization only, so requires the musical instrument. In this way music is actually an inferior form of "auditory" art. The greatest expression of music would therefore be achieved using purely the human voice without the aid of any instrument, but this something quite challenging, yet is comes quite easily in the world of Islam thanks to the Holy Quraan.

In the Muslim world, the greatest examples of literature, art and songs are always related to religion. For every piece of poetry, literature, art and music that is non-religious but considered a masterpiece in the Muslim world, there is its religious counterpart which is always superior in quality.

When it comes to music, there is cultural folk music and modern pop music. None of them can be described as having exemplary quality. None of them express any "high" ideas or anything thought provoking. I've listened to folk Punjabi music and poetry for example. Cant say I was ever moved or impressed by it. Low quality stuff for simple minded people. I'm sure the same is true for folk Pashto poetry and music, and likewise Sindhi, Baluchi, Kashmiri etc.

[ذو الفقار]

Based on my study of the Religious texts, I come to the realization that we are living in the latter-days, and in the latter-days true Believers are described as adapting an isolationist lifestyle. From an Islamic perspective, we shouldn’t be concerned with economic development or political reform, but rather safeguarding what is left of our Faith that can be practiced upon, even if it means forsaking the urbanized, cosmopolitan areas and creating enclaves in serene places far removed from the hustle and bustle of modern life.

Democracy is a participatory form of government, but true Believers in this time should not be participating in any system, instead adapting the isolationist and seclusive lifestyle. This is not to say that Islam is apolitical, only that in the present it is ultimately futile to benefit the Religion through political participation in any of the existing and established systems.

I find the concept of state within a state quite compelling. Creating a counterculture, an underground society should be our main focus. The Muslim Brotherhood was doing this to some extent during the Mubarak era. It created a compelling social network thus gaining large amount of popularity in the country. Only when it actually was elected to government based on that popularity did it end up destroying itself. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is going through a period of brutal suppression making them lose everything they put so much effort into creating. Likewise, the Ahmadiyya sect for a while created a state within a state in Rabwah, Pakistan, before they were officially declared as non-Muslims by the National Assembly in 1974. There are many other examples of various Sufi brotherhoods, Takfiri jamaa’at, and ultra-conservative Salafi groups adapting the model of the AsHab-al-Kahf, that is, isolationism and withdrawal from mainstream society. In the case of Shukri Mustafa’s infamous Takfir wal-Hijra group, they adapted this lifestyle purely as a temporary phase in their program aimed at achieving actual State power.

So I say that the Islamic movement today has to return to this isolationism and creating a counter society or state within a state, and disavow participatory politics and participation in democracy. The latter is too corrosive, futile, and ends up tainting the Movement. Many times we have also seen how destructive and dangerous it is when a measure of success is actually attained, thus provoking a devastating reaction from the anti-Islamic forces.

[ذو الفقار]

From the perspective of freedom, democracies have the tendency of limiting economic liberty and sometimes property rights. The masses tend to vote for social democratic parties that are all about heavy taxation and crippling regulations. Massive social programs like public health care and public education seem to be the inevitable result of democracy. So while one would think that democracy should obviously mean more liberty and freedom, it has the opposite effect of authoritarianism. The State becomes too powerful because democracy is the means to define how the State behaves. The function of other institutions like religious institutions or churches, and the function of non-government charitable organizations, tribes, communities and even families are outsourced to the State.

I strongly value economic freedom and property rights. I absolutely despise leftism, socialism, and communism. The leftists have always been the most harmful to the Religious element. Marx himself expressed that sentiment when he said „Religion is the opiate of the masses“. The ultimate aim of the leftist project is to have the secular State replace the institution of Religion.
I value the freedom to be able to donate my money to the religious institutions and projects that I feel are doing the best job and possessing the best objectives. But when the government is taking my money in the name of taxes, and spending that money on its social programs the operation of which I have no say, that is ironically against the spirit of democracy which is about giving people a choice. Why should democracy only be understood as a political concept? What about economic democracy?

I prefer a society in which virtually everything is privatized and the State has a very minor role. I value that in India Muslims have their own separate civil code, but even that is in danger with the movement for a uniform civil code gaining a lot of momentum there. Primary schools, police, security, law-enforcement even roads and infrastructure should all be privatized.

[ذو الفقار]

Yet another facet of democracy I find problematic is that it lacks the quality of inspiring the public. JFK put it nicely when he said „ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country“. But democracy creates the attitude of entitlement for the public. Leaders are elected through campaigning where they pander to what they think will persuade people to vote for them. This creates leaders without the quality of leadership.

A true leader has to shepherd the flock, not be steered by them. The Islamic ideal for a leader is called „Imam“ meaning one who leads and guides people. He does not simply fulfill the wishes and demands of the people, but exerts his own personal influence on them through his charisma and personal characteristics serving as a model.

None of our contemporary leaders have this personal charisma. Rather, it is now argued that a politician’s personal life doesn’t matter and should not be scrutinized because all that matters is how he is dealing with the affairs of public interest. This results in corrupt and less than desirable leaders.

A true Islamic leader does not sacrifice his personal asceticism and piety in order to do politics. I heard stories that Iran’s previous president Ahmadinijed led a very simple lifestyle and would pack his own lunch and sleep on the ground even while president. If it is true, he was mirroring an aspect of the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself and his rightly-guided Caliphs. An ideal Islamic leader has no use for pomp and ceremony. He doesn’t need formal buildings to conduct meetings and affairs of the state. The affairs of the state can be conducted by him sitting on a mat on the ground in a humble setting accessible to the ordinary people. Likewise this is the modus operendi adapted by his ministers and deputies. A true Islamic leader forfeits the VIP culture that was regrettably adapted by Mu’awiya and virtually all those other rulers that came after him. If we look at the question of security, for example, we realize that none of the rightly-guided caliphs had any serious security protocol, which explains why they were easily martyred (of course in Islam martyrdom is something to be embraced). It is unthinkable now that any ruler of any country would move about his land without loads of security all around. The movement of powerful political leaders in fact creates a lot of inconvenience and suffering for ordinary people because of the security restrictions and other protocol.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Art and music enriching life is a subjective claim. I remember reading somewhere that the key difference between Christian and Islamic expression is that whereas Christianity has historically expressed itself in visual arts, like the cathedrals with stained glass and the classic paintings, Islam has been expressed in auditory terms, i.e., the spellbinding recitation of the Holy Quraan, the call of the Adhaan. Music is actually an attempt to create a sense of awe or euphoria that cannot be achieved by the vocalization only, so requires the musical instrument. In this way music is actually an inferior form of "auditory" art. The greatest expression of music would therefore be achieved using purely the human voice without the aid of any instrument, but this something quite challenging, yet is comes quite easily in the world of Islam thanks to the Holy Quraan.

In the Muslim world, the greatest examples of literature, art and songs are always related to religion. For every piece of poetry, literature, art and music that is non-religious but considered a masterpiece in the Muslim world, there is its religious counterpart which is always superior in quality.

When it comes to music, there is cultural folk music and modern pop music. None of them can be described as having exemplary quality. None of them express any "high" ideas or anything thought provoking. I've listened to folk Punjabi music and poetry for example. Cant say I was ever moved or impressed by it. Low quality stuff for simple minded people. I'm sure the same is true for folk Pashto poetry and music, and likewise Sindhi, Baluchi, Kashmiri etc.

It's not subjective at all, it's demonstrable and an anthropological reality. The social and cultural richness of societies as expressed through their creative output . The less there is of that, the less people are driven, refined, and socially developed

I don't know what you read or where but the visual and auditory arts were precedent among Muslims. Music isn't just about entertainment. It's replete in vibration and timbre. There's a whole method about the Theory of Music which deals with the mathematical relationships of sounds. Muslims were among some of the most notable groups who developed and advanced these ideas.

Whether or not they were "related" to religion is not what's for debate here. Many were not, The Shahnameh was not, the Rubaiyyat, was not. Enumberable examples exist where religion was not necessarily the central theme. There are actually spell binding prose and songs that are not the adhan or tilawah of the Qur'an, based on the fact that music, instrumental music is based on a deeper understanding of mathematical structure through sound. When I hear the sema or hadhra or a ta'arab I'm as captivated as when I hear the Qur'an, they are not adversaries but complementary.

The Folk Music is probably some of the most poignant, visions of nature, the telling of hardships the prize of having a healthy child born in a time when child birth was one of the greatest perils we faced. They connect us to the past and direct us to the present.

This is why we need more of a Mu'tazilah vision rather than this robotic and lifeless Orthodox approach. Of course the Mu'tazilah were not without their flaws, But we don't need to recreate them we just need to draw from their vision. A world where reason and our connection to the transcendent are united hand in hand.

You're sedimenting more and more in my mind that the Orthodox establishment are incredibly skewed in their outlook and would not make appropriate rulers.

[ذو الفقار]

Is dictatorship the only alternative to democracy? The idea of Khilafa is un-democratic but not necessarily dictatorial. It is the Islamic version of theocracy, where the function of the government is only to execute the Divine well, its policies and laws already being set out and elucidated in the divinely-revealed Texts. Khilafa basically means delegation. Man is delegated with authority to execute the Divine will, not his own will. It has to be appreciated that man’s authority in this regard is not derived from himself, but delegated to him by God. Thus an Islamic theocracy cannot be described as ‚dictatorship‘ unless from the angle of saying that God is the One ultimately doing the ‚dictating‘. The executive ‚executes‘ the Divine will, and the judiciary ‚interprets‘ it. The judiciary therefore has to be composed of men of deep learning and understanding of the Shari’a and the other Islamic sciences. The judiciary is therefore the domain of the Ulama in a truly Islamic state.

The idea of a ‚vanguard‘ to protect the principles of the Islamic state and ensure that state does not go off track, is interesting. In my view, the vanguard of the Islamic revolution are simply the men of exceptional piety and learning who have a duty to lead the people and maintain a close watch on the political and social affairs. They have a duty to raise their voice if any kind of corruption becomes apparent in the society.
The idea of Shura or consultation does not include every Tom, **** and Harry, contrary to the absurd principle of democracy. In an Islamic revolutionary state, the opinion of the elders, the Ulama, and the saintly, pious people has the most weight and given consideration. It is not necessary that the process for consultation be organized formally, but it is better if kept informal and fluid.

In short, we have to question everything we have taken for granted about running a State that we have learned from the modern nation state and the Western form of government and instead go back to our ancient Islamic roots in this regard.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Yet another facet of democracy I find problematic is that it lacks the quality of inspiring the public. JFK put it nicely when he said „ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country“. But democracy creates the attitude of entitlement for the public. Leaders are elected through campaigning where they pander to what they think will persuade people to vote for them. This creates leaders without the quality of leadership.

A true leader has to shepherd the flock, not be steered by them. The Islamic ideal for a leader is called „Imam“ meaning one who leads and guides people. He does not simply fulfill the wishes and demands of the people, but exerts his own personal influence on them through his charisma and personal characteristics serving as a model.

None of our contemporary leaders have this personal charisma. Rather, it is now argued that a politician’s personal life doesn’t matter and should not be scrutinized because all that matters is how he is dealing with the affairs of public interest. This results in corrupt and less than desirable leaders.

A true Islamic leader does not sacrifice his personal asceticism and piety in order to do politics. I heard stories that Iran’s previous president Ahmadinijed led a very simple lifestyle and would pack his own lunch and sleep on the ground even while president. If it is true, he was mirroring an aspect of the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself and his rightly-guided Caliphs. An ideal Islamic leader has no use for pomp and ceremony. He doesn’t need formal buildings to conduct meetings and affairs of the state. The affairs of the state can be conducted by him sitting on a mat on the ground in a humble setting accessible to the ordinary people. Likewise this is the modus operendi adapted by his ministers and deputies. A true Islamic leader forfeits the VIP culture that was regrettably adapted by Mu’awiya and virtually all those other rulers that came after him. If we look at the question of security, for example, we realize that none of the rightly-guided caliphs had any serious security protocol, which explains why they were easily martyred (of course in Islam martyrdom is something to be embraced). It is unthinkable now that any ruler of any country would move about his land without loads of security all around. The movement of powerful political leaders in fact creates a lot of inconvenience and suffering for ordinary people because of the security restrictions and other protocol.

A Leader who sees himself as a "shepard" rather than compatriot is a dangerous person that must never see power. Power must be kept out of the hands of the narrow minded. Such individuals who advocate such things should be pushed to the margins of society. If they seek to achieve things through violence, then immeediately neutralized.. As for everything else about the Zuhd and Having charisma, yes perhaps in that respect he should be such a person. He should represent the ideal virtues of society.

I do agree with this idea of entitlement being a problem, this idea that people must get everything they demand and their demands are automatically rights. Gay marriage/gay adoption for example. But this is not a critique of democracy, but liberalism. This is where the moral criterion of religious principles come to play.. Presenting a concrete dictum for the what are appropriate social values and what aren't.

Religion should be seen as a management tool; not some subversive instrument of human society. If religion is simply to subverse humanity to the "pie in the sky" routine, it;'s of no use for us and should be ignored.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Is dictatorship the only alternative to democracy? The idea of Khilafa is un-democratic but not necessarily dictatorial. It is the Islamic version of theocracy, where the function of the government is only to execute the Divine well, its policies and laws already being set out and elucidated in the divinely-revealed Texts. Khilafa basically means delegation. Man is delegated with authority to execute the Divine will, not his own will. It has to be appreciated that man’s authority in this regard is not derived from himself, but delegated to him by God. Thus an Islamic theocracy cannot be described as ‚dictatorship‘ unless from the angle of saying that God is the One ultimately doing the ‚dictating‘. The executive ‚executes‘ the Divine will, and the judiciary ‚interprets‘ it. The judiciary therefore has to be composed of men of deep learning and understanding of the Shari’a and the other Islamic sciences. The judiciary is therefore the domain of the Ulama in a truly Islamic state.

The idea of a ‚vanguard‘ to protect the principles of the Islamic state and ensure that state does not go off track, is interesting. In my view, the vanguard of the Islamic revolution are simply the men of exceptional piety and learning who have a duty to lead the people and maintain a close watch on the political and social affairs. They have a duty to raise their voice if any kind of corruption becomes apparent in the society.
The idea of Shura or consultation does not include every Tom, **** and Harry, contrary to the absurd principle of democracy. In an Islamic revolutionary state, the opinion of the elders, the Ulama, and the saintly, pious people has the most weight and given consideration. It is not necessary that the process for consultation be organized formally, but it is better if kept informal and fluid.

In short, we have to question everything we have taken for granted about running a State that we have learned from the modern nation state and the Western form of government and instead go back to our ancient Islamic roots in this regard.

But the paradox here is divine will is for the welfare of humans, so what demonstrably benefits people is what is the will of the Divine.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

From the perspective of freedom, democracies have the tendency of limiting economic liberty and sometimes property rights. The masses tend to vote for social democratic parties that are all about heavy taxation and crippling regulations. Massive social programs like public health care and public education seem to be the inevitable result of democracy. So while one would think that democracy should obviously mean more liberty and freedom, it has the opposite effect of authoritarianism. The State becomes too powerful because democracy is the means to define how the State behaves. The function of other institutions like religious institutions or churches, and the function of non-government charitable organizations, tribes, communities and even families are outsourced to the State.

I strongly value economic freedom and property rights. I absolutely despise leftism, socialism, and communism. The leftists have always been the most harmful to the Religious element. Marx himself expressed that sentiment when he said „Religion is the opiate of the masses“. The ultimate aim of the leftist project is to have the secular State replace the institution of Religion.
I value the freedom to be able to donate my money to the religious institutions and projects that I feel are doing the best job and possessing the best objectives. But when the government is taking my money in the name of taxes, and spending that money on its social programs the operation of which I have no say, that is ironically against the spirit of democracy which is about giving people a choice. Why should democracy only be understood as a political concept? What about economic democracy?

I prefer a society in which virtually everything is privatized and the State has a very minor role. I value that in India Muslims have their own separate civil code, but even that is in danger with the movement for a uniform civil code gaining a lot of momentum there. Primary schools, police, security, law-enforcement even roads and infrastructure should all be privatized.

And yet the places where we have some of the most replete property laws and rights have come through democracy. So you're quite mistaken. There's more entrepeneurship through democratic means than through the current theocratic models.


Your conflation of leftism with democracy shows you don't really understand either. You're critiquing Socialism and not democracy at this point.

[ذو الفقار]

But the paradox here is divine will is for the welfare of humans, so what demonstrably benefits people is what is the will of the Divine.

It is too broad of a principle and disputation is inevitable when it comes to defining and determining what exactly benefits the people. In politics, virtually everything is done in the name of benefiting the people, doesn't necessarily make it beneficial

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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.

It's not, but almost always democratic institutions and liberalism cohere, hand in hand because Anti-liberalism usually leads to anti-democracy. So to have a functioninhg democracy, some level of liberalism is important Otherwise it turns into another dictatorial regime which thus abandons democracy. So yes, your critique does not really fall on democracy.

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.

You answered your own question then.

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.

Exactly; which is why we're no one to talk, We'd oppress others the same way in a heart beat. We need to learn the language of oppression needs to stop. If not, we deserve what we get. I refuse to benefit from the unneeded suffering of others. Strange how you were speaking of morality but endorse the immoral action of tyrannizing others. No one should be oppressed anywhere for simply being different.

Democracy doesn't benefit a vulnerable minority that isn't liked by the majority community.

Yep, this is the age old fallacy that democracy means mob rule, it does not mean that, it simply means people have power to elect their leaders and vote for their interests. It doesn't mean curtailing the welfare of minority groups.

In democracy minority is always at a disadvantage. In France and many other European countries, Muslims' rights to practice religion are slowly being eroded.

That's not because of democracy though. That's because of no protection for minorities.

Muslims themselves would never vote for the policies that are being implemented there

Muslims in France, as a community are basically hoodlums and fuk-ups, they have no political weight there because they don't do anything to advance themselves.

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.

No they aren't, most Muslims in America are from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. A few obnoxious people doesn't mean we're marginalized like Blacks. We maybe "hated" by the right wing voter pool, but they're not a majority.

Similarly, in India the position of Muslims is even more deplorable than that of Dalits, courtesy of democracy.

No that's courtesy of Muslims being lazy and incompetent. Don't blame democracy for failing to organize properly. Stop listening to these Mullahs who are out of touch with reality and start listening to reason.

[ذو الفقار]

And yet the places where we have some of the most replete property laws and rights have come through democracy. So you're quite mistaken. There's more entrepeneurship through democratic means than through the current theocratic models.


Your conflation of leftism with democracy shows you don't really understand either. You're critiquing Socialism and not democracy at this point.

Actually I stated that democracy tends to result in socialism. The part of the world that has been most consistently practicing of democracy is Western Europe. Western Europe is very socialist. Faithful, functioning democracies are producing social welfare states everywhere you look. It is because democracy is the will of the majority of the people, and their will is basically socialism.

I believe there is more economic freedom in the Gulf monarchies, which are absolutely not democratic

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

It is too broad of a principle and disputation is inevitable when it comes to defining and determining what exactly benefits the people. In politics, virtually everything is done in the name of benefiting the people, doesn't necessarily make it beneficial

Nol it's not, we have research now where we can see if a certain policy serves welfare either as far as health education, economic prosperity. There are actually objective measures for these things.

Not everything that doesn't serve a theocratic platform is subjective. this is just a narrative you're relaying, not factual.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Actually I stated that democracy tends to result in socialism. The part of the world that has been most consistently practicing of democracy is Western Europe. Western Europe is very socialist. Faithful, functioning democracies are producing social welfare states everywhere you look. It is because democracy is the will of the majority of the people, and their will is basically socialism.

I believe there is more economic freedom in the Gulf monarchies, which are absolutely not democratic

yeah , you're just peddling jargon though. And you're contradicting your other post where you say that Democracy curtails minorities in favor of majorities, which would not coincide with socialism ...So this lead to this lead to that stuff.....you're taking random shots in the dark hoping something will stick.

[khushal]

yeah , you're just peddling jargon though. And you're contradicting your other post where you say that Democracy curtails minorities in favor of majorities, which would not coincide with socialism ...So this lead to this lead to that stuff.....you're taking random shots in the dark hoping something will stick.

He contradicts himself on many subjects.