Comments on: Islam & Democracy

By: zeynebcan

zeynebcan — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:08:12 +0000

islam and democracy is not different things. because Ä±slam came for democracy..think about mohammad’s(s.a.v) time..poor people hadn’t any rigths and only wealties had rigths..there were not any justice..someone must say stop to all of them..mohammed came for democracy and justice..islam is democracy.islam is justice.

By: yanga

yanga — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:40:46 +0000

Dominik hit the nail on the head: dictatorship is fine if the dictator is benevolent and has the interests of the people in mind. For example, Singapore might be held as a recent day example. However, dictatorship can, conversely, be terribly awful for the people. The list of terrible dictators is too long to list, but here are a few recent examples: Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot. The benefit of democracy is, indeed, allowing the people to replace their leadership in a non-violent manner (through elections). Without elections, then civil war is usually the means by which the people replace leaders. I like the former option better. Most sane people would. Now, I’ve spoken about dictatorship, but what does dictatorship have to do with an Islamic theocracy? Well, one can think of a theocracy as a subset of a dictatorship. Theocratic rulers are typically ensconced in power by claiming that God has put them there, with no need to consult the people. In reality, it the country’s military machine (who they control) that lets them keep the power.

Iran has tried a hybrid approach: the government has elections, but only allows candidates to run if they meet a strict criteria (with regards to religious beliefs, etc.). It pretty much guarantees that the status quo will be kept. This is really not a true democracy. Kind of a pseudo-democractic-theocratic-dictatorship. Ultimately the people of Iran will get po’d with their leadership, and I suspect a civil war is in their near future (based upon the news I’ve been hearing).

By: notsnowbound

notsnowbound — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:28:15 +0000

The many comments here underscore the difficulty many have with the concept of a democratic system, and, indeed, how many of the “ideal” countries in the West are far from that. The original concept of the democratic system was to prevent oppression and misrule through the continuation of a lineage based nobility, in which birth and station, rather than ability and statesmanship were the qualifiers for rule. The original Islamic system appears to embrace the former principle of ability, but only allowing the average citizen the right to “criticize” the appointed ruler (and, given the current Muslim worlds tolerance for criticism, a much more perilous avenue) rather than a limited-term, anonmyous vote mass approval system would actually serve the latter, as the ruling cliques can simply assure themselves that they are qualified and able. This is not a problem limited to the above noted sytem, but has come to dominate the American one, as well. While there are exceptions, most of the power held in the US today rests in the hands of an “American nobility”, a relatively small and tight knit society elevated above the masses by wealth, history and connections, who dominate the limited, two-party “democracy”. This system forces all who participate into the limitations of party loyalty and pyramid organized electing, eventually having to vote for another Bush, Kennedy, or similar poster child for the elite. As well, that covers merely the elected portion of the government, not the massive, appointed, jobs-for-life bureaucracy that is the rest of the government iceberg. I personally think that the opportunity exists for Muslim societies to build a true democratic model based on the principles that the early muslim leaders espoused, combined with an able voting representational system. The challenge, though, is not the desire for such a system, but the inability of traditional power structures ( clans, tribes, sub-cultures, and religious establishments) in the Muslim world to risk their authority in subscribing to these principles.

By: Dominik (Switzerland)

Dominik (Switzerland) — Sun, 13 May 2007 20:46:10 +0000

It’s great if you have great leaders. Then you don’t need democracy.
But if you have bad leaders, it’s great to have democracy.

I think the basic element of democracy is that the people have the possibility to remove the government from power, if there is significant support, in a peaceful and regular way. Whether they manage to put a better one in place of course depends on many factors.

The bottom line is – there is no perfect system. If you have an ideal muslim appointing an ideal council to elect the ideal next caliph, which again appoints an (ideal) council to elect the (ideal) next one and so on, then clearly you’re not living in the world I know. Where I live, all people make mistakes.
Someone could argue that these mistakes are not really mistakes but instead God/Allah’s will. I hope everyone can imagine why that would not be such a good attitude.

By: Umar Farooq (Pakistan)

Umar Farooq (Pakistan) — Fri, 04 May 2007 11:13:50 +0000

Yaman > For example, Islam is very clear on the presence of alcohol in the society and does not permit muslims to be attached with the production, consumption or distribution of alcohol by any means. However, in a democratic environment, where muslims are a minority, alcohol legislation might not cater for this restriction in absolute terms.

Yousuf > Democracy in a community is different from democracy on state level. On community level, you are right in your analysis. However, think about the small christian community in your neighborhood. If they follow the same process, they will have a wise man elected as well. But when this small community is in an Islamic state, they have to abide by the laws of Islam and must remain with the liberties and restrictions implied on them. And then in Islamic system, even if the whole province is christian, the state has the authority to assign a muslim governor. Assignment from federation is not democracy.

By: Yousuf Jawwad

Yousuf Jawwad — Fri, 04 May 2007 10:26:29 +0000

i think islam does promote democracy, but the way we are implementing it is wrong. there should be a “community” based selection. the concept of a community being where people know each other and a have a raputation. Obviously, the decesion made by a well respected fellow in that community will not be questioned by the community. respected member of different communities are to form a council and then that council is to select a leader. that way, we can have approach to the leader of faction because we will be knowing the leader of our community and he can convey our message to the leader.

By: yaman

yaman — Fri, 04 May 2007 02:59:19 +0000

Umar: I am not saying Islam brought no values. I am asking you which values you are referring to.

By: Halim Kazi

Halim Kazi — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:35:35 +0000

A very well articulate article ‘ Islam & Democracy” bu Umar Farooq.
The problem with muslim nation is we lost our ability to think independently beyond Kuran, hadiths, Prophet Muhammad and his
companion.How could we build a modern state based on freedom and democracy if we go back in ancient time for role model. It is Kamal Ataturk who laid the foundation of modern state in Turkey derived inspiration from secular Europe. Muslim majority nation need to forward to go ahead and discard the idias of seeking refuge in ancient scripture.

By: Jina (Web Surgeon)

Jina (Web Surgeon) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:32:35 +0000

But this is not how the council used to be formed. At the death bed, prophet himself formed the council and asked them to choose their caliph from among them. So the initial formation of the council was not by election, but was through assignment.

But the prophet is not going to select the council now. So until the prophet comes down and hand picks his council again, go for a more fair way of picking the leaders.

This is not an Islamic way of picking leaders, it’s your typical tribal method of choosing a leader, almost all the people did it this way back then and vast majority still do this even now.

By: Umar Farooq (Pakistan)

Umar Farooq (Pakistan) — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:13:41 +0000

Omar > I agree with you where you say

I think itâ€™s more about personal freedom and equality which never seem to flourish under any religious system, was it Islam or anything else.

Because, when you are in a democratic system, the state and religion must remain separate. This is to ensure that one religion that is in majority does not subjugate the rights of a religion in minority. When a religious system is in place, it automatically treats the state to be part of the religious exercise and personal freedom and equality in terms of citizenship of the state are not kept balanced.

Yaman > You could find these statements to be questionable only if you have not read Arabic history. And if you think Islam never brought any values then its a totally different discussion, away from the current topic.

Sarkhatalaqsa > You are right here…

When u give to people the right to choose their representants (council) and this council chooses the leaders, it is, in my opinion, a democracy.

But this is not how the council used to be formed. At the death bed, prophet himself formed the council and asked them to choose their caliph from among them. So the initial formation of the council was not by election, but was through assignment.