democracy: best system ever or an utter failure?

[ذو الفقار]

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.

Gay marriage and adoption isn’t hurting me. If that’s the price to pay for the liberalism which ensures protection of our fundamental rights especially the right to practice our religion, it’s a small price indeed. As Muslims in the West, we cannot afford to concern ourselves with the social problems and moral deterioration of our host societies. In fact, the more they deteriorate, the stronger our own position becomes if we manage to maintain our community and our own people don’t get sucked into the madness. The breakdown of Western civilization’s sense of identity, morals, and the ripping up of the fabric of their society are all to our advantage. We have to behave as a community that is cohesive and a community. The greatest threat to us in the West is if we lose our sense of community and become individualist with religion being an incidental part of who we are and our private affair. Look what that did to Christians. Christianity has been decimated by its own inherent secularism.

So what really matters to us (as a minority) is liberalism not democracy. The moment our host country adapts some sort of national narrative we are doomed. Islam has the potential to thrive in places like the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and Germany where everyone is free to lead their own lives and there is no national narrative or set moral values. In such an environment, we simply have to have the discipline not to take advantage of that freedom on a personal level and thus our community will emerge as a beacon of stability in a sea of chaos.

[ذو الفقار]

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.

Some level of liberalism isn’t the same as a functioning liberal democracy. Would you describe France’s laicite model of secularism as liberalism? It is a violation of everything liberalism stands for. Geert Wilders who literally wants to ban the Holy Quraan his party in Netherlands is the largest one in the opposition (20 seats out of 150). Similarly, the Freedom Party in Austria is the largest opposition party (51 seats out of 183).

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.

Curtailing the welfare of a specific minority group (Muslims) is what many, many Europeans have decided is one of their essential interests. They have also realized that the best way to do this is through the ballot box. The rise of far-right in Europe is being made possible thanks to democracy. Alternative for Germany made historic gains in the recent elections. Marine La Penn made it all the way to the final round of the presidential election in France.

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.

That's if you think our treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state is tantamount to oppression, tyranny and making them suffer. The truth is, an Islamic state is meant to optimize the interests of the Muslims, like a Jewish state for Jews, a Hindu state for Hindus, and so on. Its purpose is not to actively and consciously make life difficult for non-Muslims, only to prioritize the interests of Muslims over non-Muslims, who I might add are free to leave. I'd actually argue that certain religious communities like Jews and religious Christians would have some advantages in living in an Islamic state. It would empower their respective religious institutions because it is the religious institutions like the Church, the Sanhedrin, the Exilarch, etc., that are formally recognized by the Islamic state as the official representatives of their respective communities. They are given a large degree of autonomy to run their own communal affairs, including their own separate legal system. Therefore, the so called "oppression" that these minorities suffer in an Islamic state is only that they are denied access to political power on the State level.

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

Democracy in its essence doesn't guarantee any protection for minorities. That's a feature of liberalism.

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.

That may be the case, but they also suffer institutional discrimination that keeps them in the state of being perpetual guest workers despite technically being citizens. France refuses to recognize the very existence of Muslims as a community with its own socio-political interests because that's how the structure of the French State is setup. Therefore, officially everyone is a French citizen, but the reality on the ground is that Muslims are denied employment. You send in your CV but when the employer reads the name "Mohammed" he simply discards it in the bin.

Unlike North America, the Muslims who went to Europe were not the elite, educated "cream of the apple". They went as laborers meant to be there temporarily. Europe failed to integrate them into the society once the mills and factories closed down. We cannot place all the blame of their predicament squarely on their shoulders.

We maybe "hated" by the right wing voter pool, but they're not a majority.

They are a sizable minority, and that's all that matters.

[ذو الفقار]

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.

How is overall welfare determined when there are so many different factors to consider? What happens if economic benefit comes at the cost of health? Which one will be prioritized?

If you are a Muslim or otherwise a religious person you must also subscribe to the idea of spiritual benefit and welfare of the soul. There is no scientific method of determining what is beneficial for the people especially when you factor in the idea of spiritual benefit.

The purpose of Religion is to give concrete and specific answers, not simply broad principles which can be interpreted and implemented in radically diverse and divergent ways.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

How is overall welfare determined when there are so many different factors to consider? What happens if economic benefit comes at the cost of health? Which one will be prioritized?

If you are a Muslim or otherwise a religious person you must also subscribe to the idea of spiritual benefit and welfare of the soul. There is no scientific method of determining what is beneficial for the people especially when you factor in the idea of spiritual benefit.

The purpose of Religion is to give concrete and specific answers, not simply broad principles which can be interpreted and implemented in radically diverse and divergent ways.

Most humans have the same basic essential needs. Health and good standard of living are some of them. In Scandinavian Countries (Social-Democratic), they may have more regulations on economics, but their standard of living are incomparable for even Western countries. They understand what works, of course they don't have all the kinks worked out but they're onto something.

Spiritual benefit is just a form of psychological and emotional benefit, furthermore spiritual benefit cannot help the masses unless their other needs are met first. Perhaps some individuals can excel without that, but not a population.

What point are concrete and clear answers that have no benefit for your life that don't advance your awareness of understanding of the universe? That don't care for whether you're well or if you're sick? Unless religion addresses these it has no use for humans. Everything must exist in harmony. Thus we need to treat religion as a set of broad principles, otherwise it cannot provide answers to humanity's problems.

[ذو الفقار]

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.

Socialism is often harmful to minorities. Socialism is favored by the masses of peasants and workers who are always the majority. This is why socialist countries are often the least cosmopolitan and the least considerate of the multiplicity of communities which each have their own specific interests. It seeks to lump all the citizenry into a single category and decide what is good for all of them, overlooking their obvious differences. The greatest example of this was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I argue that minorities actually thrive in capitalist societies, especially a lot of various Muslim ethnic groups that are mercantile. Muslims from India were thriving in parts of British colonized Africa in terms of their commerce. But when those African countries got independence they almost always followed the pattern of nationalism and socialism and the greatest victims of that were the minorities (East Indians). Forced to leave the country, their property and businesses seized by the State. When you are a minority, you tend to be more closely knit as a community. This is why in America we are thriving in small businesses. We open our own shops and greatly benefit from capitalism. Socialism would destroy all of that

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Some level of liberalism isn’t the same as a functioning liberal democracy. Would you describe France’s laicite model of secularism as liberalism? It is a violation of everything liberalism stands for. Geert Wilders who literally wants to ban the Holy Quraan his party in Netherlands is the largest one in the opposition (20 seats out of 150). Similarly, the Freedom Party in Austria is the largest opposition party (51 seats out of 183).

Fascism isn't democracy. French and Netherlands are transforming into fascists not demoratic institutions.

Curtailing the welfare of a specific minority group (Muslims) is what many, many Europeans have decided is one of their essential interests. They have also realized that the best way to do this is through the ballot box. The rise of far-right in Europe is being made possible thanks to democracy. Alternative for Germany made historic gains in the recent elections. Marine La Penn made it all the way to the final round of the presidential election in France.

No, more like thanks to fascism, democracy is once again, not at fault here.

That's if you think our treatment of non-Muslims in an Islamic state is tantamount to oppression, tyranny and making them suffer. The truth is, an Islamic state is meant to optimize the interests of the Muslims, like a Jewish state for Jews, a Hindu state for Hindus, and so on. Its purpose is not to actively and consciously make life difficult for non-Muslims, only to prioritize the interests of Muslims over non-Muslims, who I might add are free to leave. I'd actually argue that certain religious communities like Jews and religious Christians would have some advantages in living in an Islamic state. It would empower their respective religious institutions because it is the religious institutions like the Church, the Sanhedrin, the Exilarch, etc., that are formally recognized by the Islamic state as the official representatives of their respective communities. They are given a large degree of autonomy to run their own communal affairs, including their own separate legal system. Therefore, the so called "oppression" that these minorities suffer in an Islamic state is only that they are denied access to political power on the State level.

Yeah see, this is sort of semantical word jugglurary where hypocrisy exists. Treat others with justice first then expect justice. Remember what you said about entitlement? If what you're writing is not the epitome of it. Not sure what is. If you're trying to optimize benefit of Muslims and do so at the behest of other groups, then all this claim about respective institutions would not see much benefit, Rather you'd be creating a restoration of differential power dynamics between clergy and commoners which these people largely left behind.

Democracy in its essence doesn't guarantee any protection for minorities. That's a feature of liberalism.

You're more likely to have minorities protected in democracy than in theocracy which has institutionalized and explicitly condoned discrimination.

That may be the case, but they also suffer institutional discrimination that keeps them in the state of being perpetual guest workers despite technically being citizens. France refuses to recognize the very existence of Muslims as a community with its own socio-political interests because that's how the structure of the French State is setup. Therefore, officially everyone is a French citizen, but the reality on the ground is that Muslims are denied employment. You send in your CV but when the employer reads the name "Mohammed" he simply discards it in the bin.

For sure, but why are the Muslims so subserviant to the French in the first place? I blame the Muslims for their situation in France. Again, what's happening in France is fascism not democracy.

But some of what you wrote is not true. Many hard working Muslims are able to achieve a great deal in France, there has been no sound or concrete evidence that simply having the name "Muhammad" gets you from having a job. Maybe those sleazy Moroccan and Tunisian men should stop chasing French girls and forcing themselves on them, maybe they'll get better jobs if they stop getting in trouble.

Unlike North America, the Muslims who went to Europe were not the elite, educated "cream of the apple". They went as laborers meant to be there temporarily. Europe failed to integrate them into the society once the mills and factories closed down. We cannot place all the blame of their predicament squarely on their shoulders.

Yeah for sure, but this is no excuse, if you're Muslim you should know the basic standards of conduct that even our religion teaches. These Muslims that are being discriminated are generally trashy. North African men are known for being trashy.

They are a sizable minority, and that's all that matters.

They haven't been able to exercise any power so it doesn't matter much.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Socialism is often harmful to minorities. Socialism is favored by the masses of peasants and workers who are always the majority. This is why socialist countries are often the least cosmopolitan and the least considerate of the multiplicity of communities which each have their own specific interests. It seeks to lump all the citizenry into a single category and decide what is good for all of them, overlooking their obvious differences. The greatest example of this was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I argue that minorities actually thrive in capitalist societies, especially a lot of various Muslim ethnic groups that are mercantile. Muslims from India were thriving in parts of British colonized Africa in terms of their commerce. But when those African countries got independence they almost always followed the pattern of nationalism and socialism and the greatest victims of that were the minorities (East Indians). Forced to leave the country, their property and businesses seized by the State. When you are a minority, you tend to be more closely knit as a community. This is why in America we are thriving in small businesses. We open our own shops and greatly benefit from capitalism. Socialism would destroy all of that

Socialism by definition is pro-minority. As for what you're talking about the Indians represented remnants of colonial occcupation. They were unfortunate human shields for British colonial presence. .... it had nothing to do with minorities, it was rather their resistance of Africans and the Indians took the brunt for their British masters. Typical Indic mentality to serve the oppressor.

Regardless that doesn't change you're making random shots at things and using irrelevant case examples

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Gay marriage and adoption isn’t hurting me. If that’s the price to pay for the liberalism which ensures protection of our fundamental rights especially the right to practice our religion, it’s a small price indeed. As Muslims in the West, we cannot afford to concern ourselves with the social problems and moral deterioration of our host societies. In fact, the more they deteriorate, the stronger our own position becomes if we manage to maintain our community and our own people don’t get sucked into the madness. The breakdown of Western civilization’s sense of identity, morals, and the ripping up of the fabric of their society are all to our advantage. We have to behave as a community that is cohesive and a community. The greatest threat to us in the West is if we lose our sense of community and become individualist with religion being an incidental part of who we are and our private affair. Look what that did to Christians. Christianity has been decimated by its own inherent secularism.

So what really matters to us (as a minority) is liberalism not democracy. The moment our host country adapts some sort of national narrative we are doomed. Islam has the potential to thrive in places like the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and Germany where everyone is free to lead their own lives and there is no national narrative or set moral values. In such an environment, we simply have to have the discipline not to take advantage of that freedom on a personal level and thus our community will emerge as a beacon of stability in a sea of chaos.

It doesn't have to hurt you; it hurts family and societal structure and and misleads society to believe that homosexuality is anything but a disorder or abberation. While I don't advocate hurting or targeting gays for harassment, they should not be validated either. Social health is as important as personal health. My point was that these are examples of where religious can play a role in democracy to subdue the impact of liberalism. It need not be religion and democractic institutions be at odds.

[ذو الفقار]

Most humans have the same basic essential needs. Health and good standard of living are some of them. In Scandinavian Countries (Social-Democratic), they may have more regulations on economics, but their standard of living are incomparable for even Western countries. They understand what works, of course they don't have all the kinks worked out but they're onto something.

Scandinavia is a dystopia from our Islamic perspective. Even Christians know that Jesus said „man shall not live by bread alone“. Besides, the standard of living in Scandinavia is judged as being good by a Eurocentric standard. The disposition or temperament (“Mezaaj”) of the European, especially the Scandinavian, is very different from ours. They seem to live perfectly happy and content lives without an iota of Religion or spirituality (at least judging by the apparent). But we in Asia have a spiritual flavor to us. I think it might have something to do with climate. Those people who live out there in the freezing cold, it seems the cold has frozen their hearts too.

Me personally, I’d rather live in a society where there is social conflict. Makes life more exciting. You must also know that in a lot of Europe people are depressed because of a lack of spiritual communion and even just socialization. They are aged people, often living alone in isolation. Why do you think they are so fond of keeping pet dogs? They could not find meaningful human companionship so they had to resort to animals. Just because they have access to health care and education you think we should emulate them?

They have focused entirely on the material needs when supposedly improving their society while forgetting other essential parts of humanity like psychology, sociology, and spirituality.

Spiritual benefit is just a form of psychological and emotional benefit, furthermore spiritual benefit cannot help the masses unless their other needs are met first. Perhaps some individuals can excel without that, but not a population.

You are speaking as someone who recognizes Religion only for its utility but does not genuinely subscribe to the theology. Spiritual benefit is not simply about emotional well being. I talk about the welfare of the soul. That means the soul being saved from burning in Hell. In our theology, there is a world hidden behind the apparent world. This life is about saving the soul first and foremost, fulfilling the human’s material needs is secondary.

I do not deny the importance of social justice and the role of the State in working to improve the material condition of the society, especially if that society is wallowing in poverty. Poverty often leads to despair and distraction from one’s religious duties and nurturing of spirituality, though as you pointed out, that is not always the case. But I say the foremost objective of the Islamic state is to facilitate the salvation of the soul.

What point are concrete and clear answers that have no benefit for your life that don't advance your awareness of understanding of the universe? That don't care for whether you're well or if you're sick? Unless religion addresses these it has no use for humans. Everything must exist in harmony. Thus we need to treat religion as a set of broad principles, otherwise it cannot provide answers to humanity's problems.

You have not understood Religion, particularly Islam. You have to immerse yourself in it to understand its true significance and power.

[ذو الفقار]

Yeah see, this is sort of semantical word jugglurary where hypocrisy exists. Treat others with justice first then expect justice. Remember what you said about entitlement? If what you're writing is not the epitome of it. Not sure what is. If you're trying to optimize benefit of Muslims and do so at the behest of other groups, then all this claim about respective institutions would not see much benefit, Rather you'd be creating a restoration of differential power dynamics between clergy and commoners which these people largely left behind.

I don't want "justice" from my non-Muslim host society, I only want the protection of my interests, particularly of being free to practice my Religion independent of State interference. My idea of justice is quite different from theirs. If you call this hypocrisy, so be it. The truth is it isn't hypocrisy but being strategic. I subscribe to conflict theory. But unlike Marx's conflict theory, this conflict is not necessarily about competition for resources but competition for acquiring souls and competition for domination of your religion. That is the single objective, but the strategy for that objective is different for us as a minority in a predominantly non-Muslim society.

In fact our religious interest takes precedent over our communal interest. In India, for example, our religious interest is to maintain our network Madaris and expand them, while our communal interest is increasing girl's education and therefore economic productivity, therefore demanding more scholarships for Muslim girls. But I always give precedence to the religious interest over the communal interest. If we are being discriminated or neglected in a communal interest but the side effect of that is benefiting our religious interest than I am all for maintaining that status quo and doing nothing about it.

The Europeans might have left behind clericalism, but a lot of orthodox Jews and Christians secretly want a return to that medieval period where their religious institutions were much more powerful. The most ultra orthodox Jews are actively anti-Zionist because they feel that Zionism and the resultant secular state has taken away from the influence of the rabbi over Jewish society. Likewise many Christians see the reduction in the influence of the Catholic Church over society because of secularism and the modern nation state.

Such people may find it interesting that a return to their pre-modern pre-secular domination by their churches and clerics is only possible under an Islamic state.

That is quite ironic since in Islam we ourselves don't have an official clergy or church.

[maneatinglizard]

ذو الفقار you're hurting the anti-democracy side with the arguments you make. Saying things like “cold weather makes European hearts cold” or “I like social conflict” makes it hard to take the rest of your points seriously.

You also seem to conflate material wealth with democratic governance or Western civilization. Again, this only serves to strengthen the pro-democracy side, as a government, even from the Islamic perspective, must serve the material needs of its citizenry. And it’s funny that you do this, as the European kuffar used to claim the same about our societies back when Europe was a poor, dirty hellhole and the Muslin world was super wealthy. Fact is some of the richest nations in the history of the world were non-democratic, Muslim nations that ruled by Sharia. We can be successful spiritually and materially. We’ve done it before within the boundaries of our religious and cultural norms, and we can do it again Inshallah. So stop acting like we can only have Islam or the world.

I don't have the time to engage in this debate, but I think you’re doing the anti-democracy side a disservice.

[Elias]

ذو الفقار you're hurting the anti-democracy side with the arguments you make. Saying things like “cold weather makes European hearts cold” or “I like social conflict” makes it hard to take the rest of your points seriously.

You also seem to conflate material wealth with democratic governance or Western civilization. Again, this only serves to strengthen the pro-democracy side, as a government, even from the Islamic perspective, must serve the material needs of its citizenry. And it’s funny that you do this, as the European kuffar used to claim the same about our societies back when Europe was a poor, dirty hellhole and the Muslin world was super wealthy. Fact is some of the richest nations in the history of the world were non-democratic, Muslim nations that ruled by Sharia. We can be successful spiritually and materially. We’ve done it before within the boundaries of our religious and cultural norms, and we can do it again Inshallah. So stop acting like we can only have Islam or the world.

I don't have the time to engage in this debate, but I think you’re doing the anti-democracy side a disservice.

No way haha, did he really said that? I don’t read his complete posts cause it’s long and he beats about the bush.

[ذو الفقار]

It doesn't have to hurt you; it hurts family and societal structure and and misleads society to believe that homosexuality is anything but a disorder or abberation. While I don't advocate hurting or targeting gays for harassment, they should not be validated either. Social health is as important as personal health. My point was that these are examples of where religious can play a role in democracy to subdue the impact of liberalism. It need not be religion and democractic institutions be at odds.

As long as it isn’t hurting our families and societal structure; let it continue to disintegrate the families and societal structures of our adversaries. I figure the main reason people convert to Islam is because they are totally disillusioned by the breakdown in morality of their own people and the failure of their religious institutions to even have the courage to counter that.
This ‘SJW’ business has captivated the millenials. I simply find it amusing how screwed up and lost they are. Trust me, this will end up working to our advantage. We simply have to be consistent in our own values and practice of Islam. A lot of their enmity to us is rooted in envy, because the religious Muslim has an unbreakable sense of purpose and that gives us serenity and makes us sure of ourselves. For this reason, there is something very compelling about us to them.

We are not the ones validating LGBT. We have to continue to be the most loud voice against their lifestyle, but I must emphasize, never in the political sphere. In the political sphere we absolutely do not oppose the social left/SJW. Politically they can even be our allies. Our opposition to them is from the pulpit of the mosque, largely to keep our own impressionable youth away from that. But in the political stage, we have to operate like a single-issue movement, and our single issue is protecting our religious and communal interests nothing more. We do not engage in the broader national issues. This is how we maintain our political integrity and evolve into a force to be reckoned with. We should not sabotage this goal of ours by being distracted with such issues.

[ذو الفقار]

Socialism by definition is pro-minority. As for what you're talking about the Indians represented remnants of colonial occcupation. They were unfortunate human shields for British colonial presence. .... it had nothing to do with minorities, it was rather their resistance of Africans and the Indians took the brunt for their British masters. Typical Indic mentality to serve the oppressor.

Regardless that doesn't change you're making random shots at things and using irrelevant case examples

It had nothing to do with serving the oppressor. Our oppressor became the pan-African nationalist that stripped us of our citizenship and seized our property and businesses. How were we oppressing them? Those Africans decimated their own economies by going down the route of nationalization and socialism. Look what Idi Amin did and don’t forget Robert Mugabe. South Africa is still afloat because of the tact of the ANC in understanding that if they force Whites and Indians to flee the country they collapse their own economy.

Because minorities are usually immigrants, it means by nature enterprising. You have to have some spirit of adventure and enterprise to leave your home for an alien land where you start up your own business despite the incredible challenges and end up thriving. No enterprising or business-minded community likes socialism.

[ذو الفقار]

ذو الفقار you're hurting the anti-democracy side with the arguments you make. Saying things like “cold weather makes European hearts cold” or “I like social conflict” makes it hard to take the rest of your points seriously.

Those points were not my arguments against democracy. Read them in context, they are part of my specific discussion with "Iblis".

You also seem to conflate material wealth with democratic governance or Western civilization. Again, this only serves to strengthen the pro-democracy side, as a government, even from the Islamic perspective, must serve the material needs of its citizenry. And it’s funny that you do this, as the European kuffar used to claim the same about our societies back when Europe was a poor, dirty hellhole and the Muslin world was super wealthy. Fact is some of the richest nations in the history of the world were non-democratic, Muslim nations that ruled by Sharia. We can be successful spiritually and materially. We’ve done it before within the boundaries of our religious and cultural norms, and we can do it again Inshallah. So stop acting like we can only have Islam or the world.

I don't have the time to engage in this debate, but I think you’re doing the anti-democracy side a disservice.

I never said the Islamic state should do nothing about the material needs of its citizens, quite the contrary. But its primary objective is not economic development, but rather facilitation of practice and implementation of Islam. That is the nature of theocracy/religious state. It is not necessarily excluding economic development and fulfilling the necessities.
But I do take exception to your insinuation that we can have both Islam and the world. No, we are not meant to chase after Dunya. Material acquisition is never the objective. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said I fear the world will be opened to you, addressing his companions, knowing that they would be successful in conquering the great empires and acquiring their wealth. Islam wants us to live a semi-ascetic lifestyle.

The foundation of democracy is the assumption that people need representation to represent their material needs. This quickly leads to the phenomenon where the national discourse becomes entirely about economics, and class warfare between the middle class and the upper class as competition for limited resources. It is a toxic and against the spirit of Islamic politics.