What Is Your Opinion On Democracy By Shaykh Muqbil رحمه الله

[Banadiri Warrior]

You lot are overcomplicating it, it's very simple just rule according to the quran and sunnah, no need for innovations , no need for imitating inferior kuffaar.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I haven't really studied them. At some point, I would like to learn more about that history but first I want to have a deeper understanding of areas like Quran and hadith.

Of course; I brought it up for a reason, let me explain. This was where Federalism, as we know, was implemented in practice and spirit, where Amir al Mu'minin assumed the role of the Fed. gov't, and each Wilayah (State) from Greater Khorasan to Maghreb to Al Andalus (Iberia) had autonomy, with each Amir governing local affairs of his dominion, and once a year, a large congregation chaired by Amir al Mu'minin (President), attended by Amirs (governors) would be convened to discuss global affairs (State of the Nation). Now, consider where that is being practiced today; in the US? All credit has been attributed to C Montesquieu, wrongly I might add, and to that age of old European culture of plagiarism of anything 'good', but we are grateful for his work nonetheless.

Public financing, broad taxation, social security, wealth distribution to benefit the poor, child support etc., are attributes of democratic governance, yet had all been developed, and tested under the Muslim rein of Umawiyah & Abbasiyah. In other words, both democracy, and federalism have been implemented, and practised in the then Islamic State;

So, I ask, what is it that which we reject now, in said systems, that then leaders embraced, and found attractive? Food for thought.

Postscript:
When the Roman empire tried the said systems, unlike the Muslims, theirs was by way of sheer force, and domination, where Caesar would sack a European tribe, or elsewhere as happened in Egypt, impose his will upon them by installing puppet leaders, impose hefty taxation for his imperial wars, with the only return being pseudo 'protection', a criminal Enterprise, so to speak. Some consider that a model, but not in light of modern nation state structure, in its practice, or spirit.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

The Chinese method is absolutely terrible. It violates human freedom and promotes the atomization of society. It is also far less efficient, Japan/S.Korea produced more durable growth.

The goal for Muslim nations should be to become a Social Democracy.

For very poor nations, initally, a Suharto-like Guided Democracy to wipe out feudal elements and to remain cohesive, and an eventual transition to a full democracy when until there is a large enough bourgeoisie.

Flawed, of course, like other systems, but ushers in properties of interest, which might better suit developing nations than the European system, which thus far worked, miraculously I might add, for industrial nations, but is found teetering on the edge.

See, the Sino system is a blend of sorts, and has been shown to be working in practice. Democratic in adopting market economy, socialist in wealth distribution, and communist in espousing common order in ownership, in principle.

Let me offer an example: As economist, Dr J Stiglitz presented in one his lecture on how China succeeded: he showed that in 1978, China had 740m +/- people living under extreme poverty (and by poverty I mean starvation, one would not know what poverty means till one has visited China and India), and in 2016 720m +/- of the said poor, have been moved to middle class. Let us pause for a second, and ponder that. At any measure, that is a miracle, and has never been attempted, let alone done. I could attest to that, having travelled through China in many years, seen it, spoken to farmers, workers etc., and observed the economic growth, and shift for the ordinary person.

Now, that is not to say it is perfect, but for developing nations, I would want to consider it, and definitely modify it in seeking to remove certain undesirable elements like disappearing people, case in point subjugation of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

 

[GemState]

Let me offer an example: As economist, Dr J Stiglitz presented in one his lecture on how China succeeded: he showed that in 1978, China had 740m +/- people living under extreme poverty (and by poverty I mean starvation, one would not know what poverty means till one has visited China and India), and in 2016 720m +/- of the said poor, have been moved to middle class. Let us pause for a second, and ponder that. At any measure, that is a miracle, and has never been attempted, let alone done. I could attest to that, having travelled through China in many years, seen it, spoken to farmers, workers etc., and observed the economic growth, and shift for the ordinary person.

Why were 740m +/- people living under extreme poverty by 1978? China was held back entirely due to communism. Look at Taiwan/Singapore for an image of what China should be with a normal government.

When the Communists took power in China in 1949, they should have enjoyed the same decades-long burst of growth that the Soviet Union experienced after the end of the Russian civil war in 1920. The raw material for that kind of explosive growth was available in both countries: a large peasant population ripe to be transformed cheaply into an industrial working class.

And the growth had nothing to do with Communism: the same happened in Britain in 1850-1880, the United States about two decades later, and Japan in 1950-1980. So why didn’t it happen in China in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s?

The trouble with Mao was he really believed the sacred books. Russian Communists talked about “New Soviet Man” as a Platonic ideal. Mao spent 25 years trying to create a Chinese version. That led to 25 years of political upheaval, bloodshed, famine and chaos: tens of millions were killed needlessly, and at the end China was just as poor as ever. Mao died in 1976, and it was 1980 before more sensible colleagues gained firm control of the CCP and began building a modern economy in China.

Japan and South Korea were coming to the end of their three-decade spurts. China has now reached the end of its own three decades of high-speed growth, but because the three previous decades were wasted, it still has a GDP per capita only a third or a quarter of that in Japan or South Korea — or Taiwan.

Very little to learn from China. Fascism is a better development ideology for poor countries

 

[Omar del Sur]

Public financing, broad taxation, social security, wealth distribution to benefit the poor, child support etc., are attributes of democratic governance, yet had all been developed, and tested under the Muslim rein of Umawiyah & Abbasiyah. In other words, both democracy, and federalism have been implemented, and practised in the then Islamic State;

No... the Ummayad and Abbasid states were not democracies. they did not implement democracy.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Why were 740m +/- people living under extreme poverty by 1978? China was held back entirely due to communism. Look at Taiwan/Singapore for an image of what China should be with a normal government.

When the Communists took power in China in 1949, they should have enjoyed the same decades-long burst of growth that the Soviet Union experienced after the end of the Russian civil war in 1920. The raw material for that kind of explosive growth was available in both countries: a large peasant population ripe to be transformed cheaply into an industrial working class.

And the growth had nothing to do with Communism: the same happened in Britain in 1850-1880, the United States about two decades later, and Japan in 1950-1980. So why didn’t it happen in China in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s?

The trouble with Mao was he really believed the sacred books. Russian Communists talked about “New Soviet Man” as a Platonic ideal. Mao spent 25 years trying to create a Chinese version. That led to 25 years of political upheaval, bloodshed, famine and chaos: tens of millions were killed needlessly, and at the end China was just as poor as ever. Mao died in 1976, and it was 1980 before more sensible colleagues gained firm control of the CCP and began building a modern economy in China.

Japan and South Korea were coming to the end of their three-decade spurts. China has now reached the end of its own three decades of high-speed growth, but because the three previous decades were wasted, it still has a GDP per capita only a third or a quarter of that in Japan or South Korea — or Taiwan.

Very little to learn from China. Fascism is a better development ideology for poor countries

That was then under the erstwhile communism, and this is now under the new amalgam, of which provisions are found desirable; what do you think about the current amalgam system?

No... the Ummayad and Abbasid states were not democracies. they did not implement democracy.

I was more looking at the intrinsic attributes along with inherent properties of the system under test rather than its given appellation; with the said characteristics, I think we could deduce its resemblance, could we not?

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

China has now reached the end of its own three decades of high-speed growth, but because the three previous decades were wasted, it still has a GDP per capita only a third or a quarter of that in Japan or South Korea — or Taiwan.

If you could elaborate upon this thread of thought, as there is more to it.

Postscript:
Let us consider: Taiwan's population of 23+m, of which leaders had stolen the wealth of mainland China, and Singapore's 5+m, built with borrowed funds from Britain vs 1 billion people just rising from the successive fall of Meng followed by the collapse of Qing dynasties, not to mention the colonial era under the Japanese empire. Yet does not take away from their shrewd approach to economic development? How do they compare with China now?

 

[Abba Sadacha]

Democracy is simply the rule of men, with their flawed thinking and reasoning, being chose over the rule/law of the supreme one, the perfect one, who knows better for his creations than what they know for themselves.
One man said it's akin to 4 sheep and 5 wolves voting for dinner... and that makes sense to me.
If the majority vote for an immoral and evil law, then to them, it's fine because it's democracy; is that not crazy? Indeed. It is.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Democracy is simply the rule of men, with their flawed thinking and reasoning, being chose over the rule/law of the supreme one, the perfect one, who knows better for his creations than what they know for themselves.
One man said it's akin to 4 sheep and 5 wolves voting for dinner... and that makes sense to me.
If the majority vote for an immoral and evil law, then to them, it's fine because it's democracy; is that not crazy? Indeed. It is.

Again, framework (Islam) vs configuration (systems), how we design and administer is for us to choose, and decide granted we remain within the confines of the framework, and therein lies the beauty of ingenuity, and 'i3lan'.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Again, framework (Islam) vs configuration (systems), how we design and administer is for us to choose, and decide granted we remain within the confines of the framework, and therein lies the beauty of ingenuity, and 'i3lan'.

What you're promoting is something alien. It would be more appropriate for you to name it after yourself than to call it Islam.

Just stick to Quran and Sunnah. Don't try to add new things. And definitely don't try to add new things and then call what you've added Islam.

No amount or type of rhetoric is going to change the rulings on things or alter the fact that Islam and democracy are inherently opposed to each other.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

What you're promoting is something alien. It would be more appropriate for you to name it after yourself than to call it Islam.

Just stick to Quran and Sunnah. Don't try to add new things. And definitely don't try to add new things and then call what you've added Islam.

No amount or type of rhetoric is going to change the rulings on things or alter the fact that Islam and democracy are inherently opposed to each other.

Well, that is a shame, for surely that is not a luminous thought flowing from the mind of a thinker, or a philosopher, is it? And with that, you annulled the discussion, and I shall let you be. Allah yar7amak wa yahdik fi al darayn!

 

[AMusee]

Walaal, could I redirect you. Yes, that M Asad, and for a moment, let us put whom he was to aside, and concentrate upon his ideas, which I think might not work given you have reduced him to being a 'perennialist'. Is there validity in his idea: framework (Islam) vs configuration (democracy, or any other system of governance)?

Islam itself has its own system of governance. Any other form is in direct opposition to Islam. Muslims should only support and promote the system of governance that is part of our deen. Which is the Khilafa system that implements the Shariah.

Given our current situation it is not now in place. This does not mean you can promote foreign anti-Islam systems and try to pass it off as Islamic. Democracy is a western concept that only exists conceptually. It does not exist in reality anywhere. In reality there is an elite that truly controls things in the west and "democracy" quickly gets couped/ousted/destroyes/subverted anywhere else when it goes against said elite. That is just looking at the obvious mess that is democracy in practice. Aside from that, Islam has its own system of governance and this is well known.

The failure of all these these other systems as opposed to the one of Islam shows its falsehood. Democracy the people speak of is a myth.

 

[AMusee]

I think we're bound to end up with corrupt rulers in this day and age.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever disapproves of something done by his ruler then he should be patient, for whoever disobeys the ruler even a little (little = a span) will die as those who died in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance. (i.e. as rebellious Sinners).

حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْوَارِثِ، عَنِ الْجَعْدِ، عَنْ أَبِي رَجَاءٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَصْبِرْ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ خَرَجَ مِنَ السُّلْطَانِ شِبْرًا مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً ‏"‏‏.‏

Sahih al-Bukhari 7053 - Afflictions and the End of the World - كتاب الفتن - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

This is about the Khilafa not secular rulers.

 

[AMusee]

Again, framework (Islam) vs configuration (systems), how we design and administer is for us to choose, and decide granted we remain within the confines of the framework, and therein lies the beauty of ingenuity, and 'i3lan'.

Islam is a system, a complete system not just a "framework". It has its own political system. What you are doing is trying to adopt western systems and leave off the system Islam provides.

 

[Omar del Sur]

This is about the Khilafa not secular rulers.

You are saying this only applies to some giant unitary caliphate?

honestly this just shows how globalist you ikhwani types are... according to this false concept you types have invented, hadith like that only apply to the head of the some vast unitary caliphate... so having independent Muslim countries is illegitimate.... the globalism of the ikhwani ideology just illustrates how ikhwani ideology is derivative of freemasonry...

why didn't the classical scholars tell us about this alleged principle that obeying rulers only applies to the head of a unitary caliphate?

you people made this up. you just come and make this assertion without even mentioning a single scholar. the din should be taken from scholars not twitter.

 

[Omar del Sur]

even more than a thousand years ago, the emirate of cordaba in Al-Andalus was its own separate Muslim government that was independent of the ummayads...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Córdoba

independent Muslim governments have existed since the early days... so why didn't the classical scholars mention this alleged principle that obedience has to only be given to the head of a unitary caliphate?

 

[AMusee]

You are saying this only applies to some giant unitary caliphate?

honestly this just shows how globalist you ikhwani types are... according to this false concept you types have invented, hadith like that only apply to the head of the some vast unitary caliphate... so having independent Muslim countries is illegitimate.... the globalism of the ikhwani ideology just illustrates how ikhwani ideology is derivative of freemasonry...

why didn't the classical scholars tell us about this alleged principle that obeying rulers only applies to the head of a unitary caliphate?

you people made this up. you just come and make this assertion without even mentioning a single scholar. the din should be taken from scholars not twitter.

wait… did you just call the khilafa an integral part of Islam that existed for over a thousand years since the Prophet SWS a globalist Freemason plot?

You are also here arguing all the hadiths you constantly pull out for MBS is not about the khilafa who bayah is given to? Have you actually read the hadiths or do you only copy and paste them for liberal secular dictators?

The hadiths and scholars who talk about the Muslim ruler is and has always been about the Khilafa. Not secular liberal rulers.

Madkhalism is a disease, if you’re not paid for this.

 

[AMusee]

even more than a thousand years ago, the emirate of cordaba in Al-Andalus was its own separate Muslim government that was independent of the ummayads...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Córdoba

independent Muslim governments have existed since the early days... so why didn't the classical scholars mention this alleged principle that obedience has to only be given to the head of a unitary caliphate?

That was a rival claiming Khilafa not a secular liberal ruler. It is literally in the first couple of sentences in your link it was the Ummayads.

None of the hadiths and scholars quotes you use apply to secular liberal rulers. Only the Khilafa. No one has given bayah to them.

Delusional take on your part.

 

[Omar del Sur]

wait… did you just call the khilafa an integral part of Islam that existed for over a thousand years since the Prophet SWS a globalist Freemason plot?

You are also here arguing all the hadiths you constantly pull out for MBS is not about the khilafa who bayah is given to? Have you actually read the hadiths or do you only copy and paste them for liberal secular dictators?

The hadiths and scholars who talk about the Muslim ruler is and has always been about the Khilafa. Not secular liberal rulers.

Madkhalism is a disease, if you’re not paid for this.

MBS... no one mentioned MBS and you start having to talk about MBS.

You can engage in demagoguery all you want but although you mention MBS you still haven't mentioned one scholar!

"The hadiths and scholars who talk about the Muslim ruler is and has always been about the Khilafa. Not secular liberal rulers."

it is your DH movement that is a cancer.... just declare the ruler to be a "secular liberal" and suddenly you can wiggle out of having to follow the hadith.

what about HSM?

does the hadith apply to HSM?

no government in the world is doing things by one hundred percent sharia. with this DH/ikhwani mindset you can declare any of the rulers to be "secular liberal" and set for the stage for things like what's happening in Southern Somalia. the ikhwani ideology is a threat to the national security of every Muslim country and crushing it is for the benefit of every Muslim country's national security... as well as being protected against it forming a basis for khawarij movements that get armed and funded by entities like the CIA.

 

[Omar del Sur]

"The hadiths and scholars who talk about the Muslim ruler is and has always been about the Khilafa. Not secular liberal rulers."

also you still have not given any evidence that it specifically has to be the head of a unitary caliphate. you just repeat this unsubstantiated assertion without giving any proof or citing any scholar.

also is the ruler necessarily the head of a unitary caliphate or a secular liberal? those are not exactly the only possibilities.