so where are the laws derived from in an islamic deomcracy - quran and sunnah? or the people? how does it workThere is a difference between secular democracy and democracy, both are good. Do you know why there is secular democracy? Obviously these days in this context, secular democracy is out to get Muslims like France. But this has nothing to do with democracy it has to do with Islamophobia
theres another reason men corrupt and as long as Quran is open to interpretation power will be abused.
as to the 2nd point - the general rules on how to run a state and how the laws should be applied have already been cleared for us in islamic history - corruption is rife in western goverments but they still manage to implement the laws
Do you not believe in people choosing their own leaders today? It's a very simple idea. If you turned Saudi Arabia into an Islamic Ethiopia, of course after banishing the kingdom. Would you self impose your party, and person on the population as a leader of that country? The Prophets house had a government office in it you say. The mere mention of a government indicates that it serves the people. Democracy could be deciding as a community weather to invest in a dam in their community to stave of drowning. It means the leader does not decide, how his countries money is spent, as the zakat is paid by the people. It means the people decide. Think about it. The Sunnah and Quran is not a government. The Sunnah and Quran can exist anywhere in any system.
There are also many stories, and I know the caliphas were appointed, but even they knew they served the people. The people at the time of the calipahs knew that the calipahs served them. And the people would swing off Umar's head if need be to exercise their democratic rights, if Umar did something wrong. This wasn't an idea. Umar knew his head would chopped off and Umar told his people they had the right to do it and that they should do it. He was the leader, that lead them and SERVED THEM.
Today MP's, Presidents, serve their communities. How do they serve us? They take care of our houses, our jobs, our welfare, all these systems all these institutions, all these public services. It's a system, it's called democracy. It means I have a say in what you do as a leader becaasue without me your nothing. And you know what? without the people the Prophet saw would be pointless. Allah sent the last Prophet, well you know what after that there is just us humans. Humans still have to lead. Humans still need governments.
If you did create an Islamic country tomorrow, you might as well just sit on your ass, because 1) you can't practice democracy (and because of this will get no where) and 2) you can't appoint yourself as leader or anyone else, because Allah did not appoint you. So that means a complete end to any Islamic country on this planet. Quit dreaming.
The beauty with democracy is that without corruption it is the best system for a community to thrive in today, but only if the people participate.
Of course the only reason why Muslims despise democracy is because it is a western philosophy, not because it is Un-Islamic. And because of this we have not even bothered to understand democracy, but demonise it. You will also notice no Muslim country will fully introduce it yet, because our leaders are still interested in raping Muslims. But they did a good job in teaching you that it was Un Islamic and not because they are tyrannical. Can't believe you fell for that.
The irony is Western democracy was inspired by Islam itself I'll send you a video that states so.
Last edited by Blueprint; 13-12-2011 at 09:32 PM.
regarding the bit in bold - you have misconceptions it seems on the nature of an islamic state, look at the state of umar (ra) and see how the people had a say on everything - he had a shura council whom he would consult for decisions - one a time a woman stood up and told him he (umar) was wrong...he considered it and then said i am wrong and you are right....all these things show freedom to speak, freedom to challenge the leader and so on
as for the issue of appointing a leader - you are not supposed to be appointed by Allah (swt) - umar (ra) wasnt...generally you have a shura and the after consultation period a person was chosen - the shura council is supposed to be representative of the people
Shurah blah blah. Whatever you call it, it's democracy.
erm no, if it was called democracy then thats the word the sahaba would have used - or the arabic equivalent
why use the terminology of obama or cameron or any proponent of "democracy" when you have islamic alternatives - if its to please the non-muslims then thats not our aim
Your question is absurd. Democracy as a word in the dictionary is more accessible, recognisable and understandable. You use words today that the Prophet saw never used. You must be so arrogant/proud I feel, on useless matters, to disregard language and knowledge based simply upon it's origin. It's like hating the word curry because it came from India.
Its not about hating any word, its about using what is appropriate according to what the prophet (saw) practised. When the word democracy is used nowadays, it has virtually nothing in common with the islamic ideals we are talking about.
Anyway it's just a system and a concept. As long as you know what democracy is. I still think you don't though. The Prophet saw was a man. Even he appointed people who did the job well in positions of responsibility when it came to leadeing the public on matters. That's where democracy starts. The best people for the job to serve the public.
Your contradicting yourself. Umar RA did give power to the people when he said please chop my head off when I go wrong. So did Abubakr RA. The Prophets job was to empower the people through the principle of Islamic justice.
The Prophet saw did give power to the people when he told the woman who committed adultry to leave. Thats law mate.
Yes in your lifetime you have used many words that the Prophet saw didnt Democracy is just a word no need to get your beard in a twist. I love British democracy. No Muslim country so far has inspired me with freedom, neither any Europeon country neither America.
Your ethos that Muslims cannot think for themselves, or use modern new words. Or respect systems made by non Muslims is absurd. You fail to convince me in any of your thoughts.
You misread my post - i said giving "power to the people" in terms of law-making - i was talking about law-making which in a democracy is an ongoing process....for example bestiality and sodomy used to be illegal to the US military, now a law has come about to change that...most of islamic law regarding the major known issues, zina, alcohol, capital punishment and so on are already made from quran and sunnah and the people have no right or say in changing them - the leader or the judge are the ones who decide whether any punishment will be carried out after evidence.
as for the xample of the woman who committed adultery - he didnt change the lawbut as the leader he was the one who had made the decision - also if we're talking about the same case, there were not witnesses to see the crime - if we're talking about different cases, then there was a case where the prophet (saw) did carry out the punishment and the woman was executed
you may love british democracy but dont expect an islamic state to look like britain - that would be a traversity
my thoughts are not meant to convince you of anything, take them as a warning as I think you may be dissappointed if an islamic state does come about
ps id advise everyone here who has problems with islamic law and shariah to listen to the life of umar ibn khattab lectures...very eye-opening
Yea your just upset with the word democracy. The US is not a good example of democracy at all. Erm even in shariah law making is an ongoing thing. That's why no scholar will ever agree with the other. And that's why The Prophet did things different to the law. It's all about context and situation.
^ the only similarity I have to the republican party is that I too think obama is a retard - but then again so are the republicans
But let's suppose voting fraud is made impossible, democracy is still an easy system to subvert. The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, is known as "The Father of Propaganda" for a good reason. He formulated effective propaganda techniques for manipulating public sentiment, and as Abraham Lincoln observed earlier in history, public sentiment is everything. The latter has been shown to be true time after time.
So how do you separate corruption and subversion (external and internal) from any political system? If you can't, then they're all as flawed as each other.
Where is Blueprint anyway ?
Even if there was no corruption, all political systems are vulnerable to ideologically motivated subversion, from within and without. The manipulation of public sentiment and public values is one of many subversion techniques. One example is an ideological assertion (or a big lie) and a leading figure of authority repeatedly propagating it, say the threat of a foreign WMD attack within 45 minutes. Or perhaps the sinking of a friendly naval ship by a mid-east nation allegedly seeking to start a nuclear holocaust. What are the ramifications of this? You can work that out yourselves.
The Greek philosopher Plato put forward the view that democracy degenerates in to tyranny, and I would say we are currently on a path that is parallel to this. I'm a strong believer in representative government, but the key thing for me is, how do you have a system of government where the people *always* have power over the state, over its governing institutions, and any institution that has the power to affect policy?