food for thought:shria&democracy.are they compatible?

[samadoon-waaxid]

seriously, I'm sick and tired of people making democracy and sharia either or argument. if we were to make the quran and sunna the supreme law of the land and restricted parliament's role to legislation within the realm of sharia.arent sharia and democracy compatible then? lets put this subject under the knife reer Snetow

[Coeus]

No they are not.

[James Dahl]

Democracy just means government chosen by the people. The Rashidun Caliphate was a democracy, because the Caliph was elected by the Ummah.

Democracy and "Western Values" are not synonymous.

[samadoon-waaxid]

Democracy just means government chosen by the people. The Rashidun Caliphate was a democracy, because the Caliph was elected by the Ummah.

Democracy and "Western Values" are not synonymous.

well said James,although early mulsims were careful to call it "mashuura" or conseltation as allah had ordered prophet Muhamed to consult with his companions and the ummah in general,but essentially its the same thing as democracy minus the absolute rule of the people,and the source of the constitution.

[James Dahl]

The line that Islam and Democracy are incompatible is the greatest con the Saudis and the various totalitarian autocrats have ever pulled.

[grandpakhalif]

depends which type of democracy we are talking about, the democracy for respected scholars and caalims to choose the caliphate, or the respected people whose are opinions are honest and truthful. i support this kind of sharia law, not the farce concept of 'every man every vote' democracy which gives the power to incompetant people and jeapordizes the ummah. So the islamic cversion of freely picking amirs is what I support then that caliph is responsible for thappointment of governmers and such. restricted democracy to the salahiin is great

[samadoon-waaxid]

james:the same con is preached by the west,especially conservatives,by constantly refering to Iran as a theocracy when in fact its a religous democracy.thus its apparent unless "western values"are imported the west will never accept there is a democratic muslim nation,just like the EU will never accept turkey

grandpakhalif:i understand thats how the first khulufaa were chosen by brining together the most respectable indivisuals of the society and choosing one amogst them.but in this day that concept is not applicable.how are u gonna determine who is righteous enough to vote in a places like pakista and and nigeria with over 100 million population.and if u confined the ruling/vote to a small group isnt this the perfect recipe for a monopoly by a one family like in the case of ummayad,abasyds, and the current day saudi ruling family.there is simply no substitute for the one man and vote concept today,i reckon.

[James Dahl]

Universal Suffrage is an aspect of a democracy, it does not equate to it. A system where only the Ulema has a vote would be a form of Limited Suffrage. The United States used to have Limited Suffrage, where only male, white landowners could vote. Non-landowners got suffrage in the 19th century, then black people (with limitations until the mid 20th century), then women in the 20th century.

Iran is a hybrid system where the head of state is essentially a theocracy (the Council of Experts), while the head of government and parliament is a parliamentary democracy. The problem lies in that the parliamentary elections are not free and fair, candidates can only be selected by the Council of Experts, and the Council of Experts holds all "real" power, and the Council of Experts is not elected by anyone other than the Council of Experts.

This means that Iran's democracy is non-functional, it is a farce, meant to give the appearance of democracy. In practice, Iran is a totalitarian state under the Council of Experts.

[LiquidHYDROGEN]

A word of caution; Democracy and progress do not necessarily go hand in hand.

[Salahuddiin]

How they would be compatible?

If the constitution was Shariica and it would be absolutely untouchable and the parliament wouldn't have anything to say about the laws included in it (cutting the hand for example), then they could only legislate on issues that Allah didn't give us ruling, like traffic laws for example. Even the legislators of those kind of laws should have religious knowledge because each ruling should follow general Islamic objectives and principles (maqaasid al shariica). Can you call such a system a democracy, where most of the laws are absolutely untouchable even if the whole country would want to change them?

Second question is how would you elect people to parliament? In every single country there are always fussaaq/munaafiqiin, who would want freedom of drinking, partying, making zina, speaking ish about religion etc. There are also totally ignorant people who don't have even slightest idea what the country would need and what's important. Their vote would be based on stupid reasons like this man looks nicest of them all, or based on some promise that could be very unrealistic and not achievable. Should their power in electing the leader be equal with doctors and culamaa?

There should be a limited group of people who could vote, but how should we define that group and what would be the conditions for joining that group?

Why we have to talk about democracy and other western ideas? We don't have to follow them in anything and take their ideas with small Islamic adjustments but we can create our own system based on our religion. Islam includes the notion of shuura, but it doesn't mean that any unknown retard or murtad in the suuq has a say in what to do. Shuura is for limited group only.

[samadoon-waaxid]

How they would be compatible?

If the constitution was Shariica and it would be absolutely untouchable and the parliament wouldn't have anything to say about the laws included in it (cutting the hand for example), then they could only legislate on issues that Allah didn't give us ruling, like traffic laws for example. Even the legislators of those kind of laws should have religious knowledge because each ruling should follow general Islamic objectives and principles (maqaasid al shariica). Can you call such a system a democracy, where most of the laws are absolutely untouchable even if the whole country would want to change them?

Second question is how would you elect people to parliament? In every single country there are always fussaaq/munaafiqiin, who would want freedom of drinking, partying, making zina, speaking ish about religion etc. There are also totally ignorant people who don't have even slightest idea what the country would need and what's important. Their vote would be based on stupid reasons like this man looks nicest of them all, or based on some promise that could be very unrealistic and not achievable. Should their power in electing the leader be equal with doctors and culamaa?

There should be a limited group of people who could vote, but how should we define that group and what would be the conditions for joining that group?

Why we have to talk about democracy and other western ideas? We don't have to follow them in anything and take their ideas with small Islamic adjustments but we can create our own system based on our religion. Islam includes the notion of shuura, but it doesn't mean that any unknown retard or murtad in the suuq has a say in what to do. Shuura is for limited group only.

Salahudiin,i'm aware there are certain fundamentals of sharia that are untouchable,thus I said the perlimant will work within the relam of sharia.like you said shura is a notion,and principle and not a comperhensive governing system.Allah has given u the opetion to follow whatever governing system that we want as long as it doesnt contradict with the sharia, fullfills its purposes and the huduud are done.

as far as the fusaaq,hypocrite,and ignorant people.they existed in the days of the prophet,they exist today and they will exist tomorrow.its just the reality,so we might get used to it and build our laws around that pinicple.in America,for instance, people lose their voting rights for certain crimes,and the same could be applied in a islamic democracy.citizens can get their voting rights invocked by doing muharaamat such as adultering, drinking in the public ....etc
besides,not only the selective shura that you advocating is religiously not sanctioned,but its also unpractical. how do u decide who is righteous enough to vote in a religious sectarian society like iraq? and how do u keep track of people's manners,piousness in a society of over 100 million people like Pakistan and Nigeria? that is the mother of all unrealistic things sxb.