Close Topic Options

Is Islam Against Democracy? - Page 3

I am a liberal, but to me, liberalism doesn't equate to immorality. One can be a moral liberal. The literal definition of a liberal is one who is free from prejudice or bigotry; or shows tolerence. While I do not agree with certain life styles or choices, I am not going to make a nuisance of myself. I am not their keeper. A person is responsible only for their own actions before God, not the actions of any peer or predecessor.

As for political systems, all are dictatorial in some sense, even democracy. The difference between systems of dicatorship is the method of how a leader is chosen and how poor leaders are removed from power.

Monarchy leaders are chosen by right of heir, and poor leaders can only be removed from power by abdication, succession, or revolution.

Democratic leaders are chosen by popular vote, and poor leaders can be removed by impeachments, vote of no confidence, or by merely allowing their term to expire and not re-electing them. The United States limits the number of successive terms a leader can remain in power; Commonwealth nations (Canada, U.K., etc) have no such restriction.

The attempt at implementing democracy came about because of humanity's imperfections -- that absolute power would eventually corrupt even the strongest leaders. It was thought that if one could limit a leader's power, and guided by majority opinion, that the system of government would be resistant to corruption and conform somewhat to society's average morality. However, Democracy in attempting to solve these problems caused a whole host of new issues and new ways for leaders to engage in corrupt behavior that was not foreseen.

Democracy Islam Is

Karbala:

I do not expect the Koran to praise what Muslims believe to be a rejection of "Truth" nevertheless we are called derogatory names like "infidels". Funny enough, the meaning of that word is "without faith or unbeliever", but just because my religion beliefs are not according to the Islam does not make me or anybody else an "infidel" which is used by Muslims to describe those who are not Muslims. Based on this and many others, I cannot say I believe the Islam is okay with those who practice another Religion.

Maybe you want to explain these verses and what they mean, they do not sound very peaceful to me:

Now you stated earlier that Democracy is not incompatible with Islam, then you tried to somehow change? or clarify that you meant Liberalism and that if people reject a theocracy then cannot be imposed to them. How realistic is that? If people are FORCED to dress in a certain way or face jail time, if they are NOT free to see about their personal grooming, if hundreds of women are arrested for not dressing according to the "law" and need to write letters of apology or face jail time, if women's activists are not able to do their work in FREEDOM. How can you call that a Democracy? It is not! If people are FORCED to do something based on RELIGIOUS views then is a theocracy and is obvious a great percentage of people in Iran are NOT happy with this form of government yet they are UNABLE to do anything about it, otherwise they will end up in jail, probably tortured (as those students who were thrown acid in their faces) or face death.

Is Islam Against Democracy? Islam Studies

Responding LDS_forever:

I cut your sentences just to make it easier to respond, I do not mean to be rude.

Obviously this is not what everyone wants, but majority wants this.
There is a Hadith, that says all ideologies will have a chance to rule over people, so that in the end no one will say: "if we had a chance we would have brought justice too!" and then God will establish justice on all earth.
Francis Fukuyama once said history has ended in the sense that liberal democracy is the final and ultimate solution of governance. This is what western intellectuals say, Dr. Abbasi also explains how the tree of western philosophy has become full grown and that liberalism is the final outcome of this. Because indeed the root of this tree lies in individualism.

Democracy means rule of people over people, now I doubt it is even practical in large societies, however if we assume it is, then still it contradicts the philosophy of Tawhid, in which 'shirk" is a great sin, where is God in all of this, does he also have a share of power? If God is the ultimate ruler over man, then certainly democracy can't be. However some of my brothers may refer to democracy in a different way, for example when Hamas was elected in Palestine. Or the revolution of Iran, this is like majority decide to be ruled by something other than democracy, however the very revolution itself is the decision of people.
It may be a bit confusing so let me just explain in an easy way:
If will of people do not contradict with will of God, then even if they vote the outcome would be the same, but also not everyone is fit to decide who should be the leader, or who is the most intellectual or who is the most righteous. The man at the head of ruling system must be God-fearing first and secondly knowledgeable and those who choose him must also be God-fearing as well as being well versed in religion. People can vote for lower level decisions, those that do not alter or jeopardise the fundamental path of society and its direction for perfection.
In Iran people vote on many occasions, to choose their MPs, to choose president and to choose members of the "assembly of experts" who in turn will choose the supreme leader and have the power to dismiss him if he acted contradictory to Islam.

Responding Karbala:

Dear brother Karbala, سلام علیکم
Forgive me for not responding to your posts first, I jumped in a bit fast. Hopefully I have clarified in this post what we both mean by democracy.

Well said, I totally agree with you.
Perhaps we should also engage in a topic on liberalism and its history, that seems to be more fundamental. Or I could translate speeches of Dr. Abbassi.

--------------------------------
Edited:

Responding LDS_Forever:

Thank you for your posts. I will explain those verses shortly.

Edited: Ascent on 31st May, 2007 - 1:54pm

Page 3 Democracy Islam Is

Ascent:

So basically, the will of people is fine AS LONG AS agrees with Islam? That's what I gather from your statement, please correct me if my interpretation is wrong. Then I do not see how Iran could be called a Democracy or the closest to Democracy when is obvious the laws and dictates are based on RELIGION, in this case Islam. Neither can I see they enjoy freedom when their will is limited by certain religious views they must follow. Sounds like a religious dictatorship to me.

Just because people have the right to vote, does not make it a Democracy because they are voting people whose religious views and decisions will go according to the Islam and the Supreme Leader.

Democracy Islam Is

There is no doubt that practicing Shia population of Iran (majority) do not hold western values as high as people in the west, furthermore I have already said we do not believe in democracy or rule of people over people, however people can vote to show their agreement and support for the government as well as get into streets and show their support for the government, examples of which you see from Hezbollah of Lebanon and in Iran which often western media tries to downplay their significance by dropping a zero from the number of people involved in such events!

In an Islamic country, populated by Muslim majority, that is so! And you have interpreted it fully correctly, just the way I wanted to imply. Remember a Theocracy also can be supported by people.

We are a Theocracy(not any theocracy) and still revolutionising our social systems by converting them from secular to Islamic ones, this takes time. Your human rights, are the rights of people who are positioned at the centre and everything is subject to them, even God. We do not believe in your human rights.
In short we do not worship nor share your idols, values and we do not bow to your holy book of liberalism and its commandments of civil society, human rights, freedom as you define them, now this is not hard to understand and you already know it, let us instead talk about why we think theocracy is a better solution, also explain why we believe in what we believe and tell you how do we define human rights and freedom...
But before we do that it is important to talk about philosophies, and talk about "absolute VS relativity", whether religion and its morality should be seen as something that limits freedom or a guiding post for advancement towards justice.

Is Islam Against Democracy?

Ascent:

I see. Let me ask: Are they free to get into the streets in the same way but peacefully and show their disagreement with the government without facing any consequences such as being arrested, etc? As you see, is a very specific question and I would prefer a very specific answer, thanks.

Do you all believe human beings have the right to worship whatever Religion they want as well as express their agreement AND disagreements with the government without being persecuted for doing so? Or basically you all believe men and women MUST follow the laws and dictates that come from Islam or face consequences?

I am not sure why you say it is not hard to understand, it is very hard. We come from different cultures, backgrounds and religion...In my opinion, some of the dictates and laws people in Iran must follow are an invasion to privacy to me and cannot see that as freedom.

Rather off topic, but... I would love your opinion on this thread as well as many other threads about Islam. Thanks: https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index....topic=24335&hl=

Is Islam Democracy - Page 3

People have their privacy. It is in public that all people should respect the social norms and rules, not that these are necessarily imposed by government, in fact people themselves would react to any anti-Islamic behaviour, however like most of the world a considerable number of our population have been desensitised by liberalism.

There is a huge difference between freedom of expression and freedom of speech. For example an individual thinks all property can and should be stolen. If he tries to express his belief by practicing it then surly he will be opposed by the prevailing rules and regulations, on the other hand, if he decides to explain his views, then he will be challenged to change his view and he will be provided by rational arguments.
Even freedom of speech must be limited to an intellectual and polite speech, but any other form of expression that involves actual physical practice of a belief must be reasonable and further it must pass the test of whether it is good or bad through the accepted judgmental filters of a society, in a theocracy there should be no room for bad, but everything can be questioned and there is answer for all.
By the way good and bad are totally black and white, and there is no grey area, that requires a deeper discussion.
Furthermore the Islamic revolution of Iran took place because people of Iran were ultimately free to decide their own fate, not that this freedom was granted by the last corrupt puppet king of Iran, rather this freedom exists in all humans and this is granted by God, the ability to choose, so let all those who strive for their cause and are willing to even give their lives for it, earn respect and command the future.
As for your question, you would be amazed to know the variety of discussions that takes place in Iran.
I doubt any country has the power to arrest more than 100.000 people, if this was truly a genuine and popular movement you would see an organised demonstration of millions of people, just like the ones Shia population are famous for conducting... But if they really do respect the social norms and protest peacefully I believe they can.

I think more or less this is answered above. Yes, Iran has a few minority populations, including Jews and they even have a representative in government. In the public people must obey the Islamic rules, in their homes they have their privacy.

I agree, it is hard; however I was saying you understand that there is difference, not that you understood the differences. I noticed you were trying to compare Iran with a democracy, while you may find some minor similarities, at the core there is difference.
I do not know were finally the boundary of your privacy ends, to me in the west people have already intruded their own privacies.
Definition of privacy:
1. the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others
2. [n] the condition of being concealed or hidden

Privacy means something that is yours alone , like your home, but when you want to show off your physical beauty to others and at the same time you blame the rule of Hijab to be intruding your privacy, then certainly you must revise your definitions.
Human mind is always private, except that God sees it better than you do. We have our own beliefs and that is private, but when we practice our beliefs then there is responsibility and the issue of accountability and consequences, particulary in public.

Vaya Con Dios
------------
edited: I noticed a misspelling: "were" should be "where", marked in bold.

Edited: Ascent on 1st Jun, 2007 - 11:37am

Is Islam Democracy Studies Islam - Page 3

No one sane calls a christian, jew, zoroastrian or any monotheist a "infidel" or the arabic equivalent "kaafir". The islamic term is "ahlul Kitab" or "people of the book".

Lets deal with the Quranic verses you quoted.

9:5

3 amnesties are provided in these verses.
1. Idolators with treaties are not to be harmed.
2. Idolators who repent and establish worship and pay the poor due are not to be harmed.
3. Idolators who voluntarily seek protection are not to be harmed.

The people targeted by these verses were people who were continuously breaking treaties, treacherous people who were disrupting peace and dismantling law and order. There is a further description of them in a later verse

9:14 and 9:123 have the same conditions as 9:5.

You have to remember that these are conditional verses which are subject to restrictions in other verses

eg.