Islam and Democracy

[Alchemist]

[JAMALUDEEN]

lol ur bald.

[ScimitarXEdge]

[Alchemist]

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

There's no absolute Islamic ruling on democracy. Different scholars have given different interpretations on the matter:

Javed Ghamidi: A parliamentary democracy is in line with Islamic teachings.

Ibn Baz and company: If you cast a vote, you become an infidel.

Khomenei: The government can consist of both elected and unelected officials.


If you go back into history, you'll see that all the medieval Muslim political thinkers (Farabi, Muwardi, Tusi, Ghazali) were in favor of monarchies that would be under Shari'ah Law (though that was never the case - the Shari'ah almost always applied to everyone except the monarch himself). Later on (19th century), Iqbal and Afghani encouraged the masses towards constitutional democracies though they both criticized popular democracy and still flirted with the idea of the Shura or council being comprised of "wise men" only and not the rank and file.

All of these scholars believe(d) that their views are 100% in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. In my opinion, there's no absolute ruling here given the availability of evidence on both sides.

[Alchemist]

^ Ok not 100% but just from what you say 90% against democracy...

(and that only because you think ghamdi is a "Scholar" (of God knows what))

aah ..thank you!


I see you sporting an avatar of Lenin... what would you like to see? Communism?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

^ Ok not 100% but just from what you say 90% against democracy...

I tried to show that almost any political system can be legitimized using religious sources. The monarchical form of government was the norm during the Medieval era and hence, all the scholars of that age favored it and thought of it as compatible with Islamic law. As time progressed, scholars began pondering over constitutional democracies and how certain Islamic tenants were actually compatible with them.

(and that only because you think ghamdi is a "Scholar" (of God knows what))

I mentioned him because he's more recognizable than, let's say, Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who is another scholar who sees nothing wrong with parliamentary democracy as long as it's under an Islamic constitution. Of course, he differs with Ghamdi over just about everything else but that's another issue altogether. There are just as many scholars who support democracy as there are who oppose it. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was another supporter of democracy despite his orthodox religious instruction.

I see you sporting an avatar of Lenin... what would you like to see? Communism?

I don't like rampant capitalism, do you?

[Alchemist]

I tried to show that almost any political system can be legitimized using religious sources. The monarchical form of government was the norm during the Medieval era and hence, all the scholars of that age favored it and thought of it as compatible with Islamic law. As time progressed, scholars began pondering over constitutional democracies and how certain Islamic tenants were actually compatible with them.

You tried to legitimize your own view but failed to do so by citing religious sources.
You only assume that scholars favour what seems right as if to say that they adapt with the times. But the age old question is: which came first? the chicken or the egg?
Did kingship came to be because ulama favoured it? Or did they even favour it? Or was there even an alternative to it? So they had to favour it because there was no alternative form of government to ponder against?

In either case you are wrong, because All every scholar out there will tell you that Shari'ah is timeless and it is the ultimate source of Authority. And even though ijma is a process of understanding the Shar'iah, it is by theory anterior to it, and the Muslim community by large, is passive to it. The role of the Islamic government is to see to it that the Shariah is obeyed.

The source of both power and authority is the Khalifa.

In a monorchial system the king has the power but not authority. And if the king doesn't follow the Shariah, then he is not fit to be considered a leader of Muslims. (This is the sunni view...the mutazali view is that the khilafa is based on "reason" and not shariah).
More importantly, you don't realize how complex Al Ghazali's form of Islamic government actually is. If you studied it, you would have found that he opted for a multilateral government system under rulership of one. He goes on to say that the Khalifa must appoint an Imam based on ijma and the deduced will of the Prophet (pbuh) (which was the establishment of Islam, prayer, fasting etc marriage, laws of inheritance etc). Ijma here means consensus in the form of approval and perpetuation of the Islamic Community, over successive generation. To implement and institutionalize the Shariah, the Khalifa would have a Sultan. There has to be a Khalifa because in the absence of a khalifa, no qadi's judgement would be valid and no contractual relationships valid!
The more important question in regards to our discussion is, how the khalifa get's chosen. Ghazali says only the present Khalifa can choose his successor. Thereafter, those who have power will give bay'ah, and subsequently the Ulama by ijma will concede, and lastly the people will be told. - This is the opposite way from what you understand of democracy but still "consensual" as ****mitar insists it ought to be. The only way the government of a Sultan is valid is through it's recognition of the Khalifa.

In any case... you have to know that where ****mitar and I differ is on his attitudes towards the Ulama. Even Ibn Taymiyah and Nasir ul Tusi talked about having different functional aspets of the Khilafat represented as such, in the absence of a society conducive to the development of a "philosopher-king". And be it in the Ottomon or the Mughal, the Ullama have always played a special political role. And even if you consider Iran's style of governance, how different is it from what Ghazali expounded, when you consider the modern role of a Sultan?

I don't like rampant capitalism, do you?

I am a capitalist.

But capitalism isn't a form of governance...it's not "haram" so to say.

Some would argue that the "free" world has slowly moved into communism anyway...don't you think so?

[randolph85]

then we have another discussion about the islamic concept of not competing against each other for wealth, which is basically capitalism.