New Age Islam
Sat Oct 31 2020, 06:12 PM

Islam and Politics ( 21 May 2013, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Taliban's Tirade against Democracy Based on Sheer Ignorance of the Fast Changing Global Situations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Islamic Democracy

By Md Sayeed Hasan, Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad

You might have heard this........ ‘Democracy is the gift of the west. It is the worst thing. It is right that it can work in their societies but our society is not based on the Roman civilisation but on the Islamic civilisation. Western democracy cannot work here.’ If you prod them a little more and say that the democracy for which you people vouch for and about which it is said that the worst kind of democracy is better than the worst dictatorship so it should also not be accepted, you get an answer like this: ‘Definitely the western democracy is the worst thing but I am talking about the Islamic democracy. In words, when democracy is Islamised (as clothes are coloured) it becomes Islamic democracy and it becomes necessary for us to pay allegiance to it.

It is hoped that this may remind you of a similar scene.  A fiery orator or a reputed author writes reminding the westerners of their place, “O people of the West, the democracy about which you do not stop harping and for which you destroy the dictators by dropping millions of tonnes of gun powder existed in our society since the time when you wrapped your body with clothes made of hide and lived a tribal life.” our chest expands with pride and our inferiority complex seems to diminish a little.  It appears that after conquering the battle of democracy, only the race for technology remains to be won. And that too will be achieved somehow.

If you hesitatingly ask him if it would not be better if instead of grafting the term Islamic on democracy, we use the word caliphate or emirate, you get an angry reply, ‘There is no difference between Islamic democracy and caliphate or Islamic emirate. The two words are synonymous. Dear, the world is a global village and this term is famous. What curse will befall us if we use this in this context.’

If we keep in mind this issue and think over it with an open mind, you will realise that the story of the words is a long one. Then some words take the form of terms. Though the people use the words in general meaning but when they are associated with a specific department of life or a particular science, their meaning does not remain the same as is found in the dictionary. There are many examples about it. For example, the word ‘pig’ has more or less 9 meanings in the dictionary and one of them is policeman and another is a licentious woman. Similarly, the word ‘try’ has six meanings as a verb. One of them is to make an effort and in legal parlance it means to file a case against someone. Whenever the word will be used in legal parlance, it will have a specific meaning. In the same way, democracy is a term and caliphate and emirate is another.

We should understand clearly how a term comes into existence. It’s very simple. If a term already exists, another term is coined or used to distinguish the points of difference. After all why is a term coined?

Its main purpose is to condense many sentences and explanations in one word. There is a long story behind the term democracy. The story is very different from the story of caliphate and emirate. Obviously, when the backgrounds will be different, their meanings will also be different. That’s why when a term is used against another; the purpose behind it is to highlight the differences that are present between the two. If this is not kept in mind, the situation becomes ridiculous. Let’s take an example.

You, me and a dacoit can have many similarities. For example, both cannot live without food. Both have to breathe to remain alive. Both cannot work continually without sleeping. When so many similarities have come together then it can be said that you are as much of a dacoit as is Sultana Dacoit. It can also be said that you are as much corrupt in terms of sleeping as is Zardari. So, anyone can be a murderer, thief and drunkard in terms of food and drinks. What can be more absurd than this?

This was about the attitudes.  Now let’s take ideology or thought. Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Islamic Buddhism does not exist in this world because we consider these terms different from one another due to their different backgrounds and that’s why they are used as terms. It is surprising that we consider them absurd, vulgar and irrelevant but when the term Islamic democracy is used, it is accepted in such way that a more logical and rational term cannot even exist.

Islam has its own concept of governance. A term already exists to describe it and until the imperialists had not entered our lands and sang praise to democracy, people had used the term caliphate. Generally the argument that is produced for the merging of the two terms is that the concept of Shura is present in both Islam and democracy. Therefore, both are identical. OK, to take the discussion further, we suppose that there is ‘Shuraism’ in both, still it makes no sense because terms are coined on the basis of differences and not on the basis of similarities. Secondly, the Shuraism present in democracy is not the same as that of caliphate in the sense that in caliphate the Shura is made into Sharia on the revelation of God whereas in democracy it is not so.

It is said that fever and pain is not the disease but the symptom of the disease. This can also be said about the slogans and terms. Their majority carries great confusion. The speaker means something, the listener means something else and the real meaning is something else. In this state of confusion, everyone uses his own interpretation and explanation. What is the disease?  The disease is becoming a part of this corrupt system and accepting it on any level.

“Great is He who revealed this Furqan to his slave so that it can warn the people of the world.”

Al Furqan: one who distinguishes between the true and false. The one that makes the flags of the truth and falsehood identifiable from a distance and the slogan and the knowledge of the believers of the falsehood becomes alienated. The person with a vision will come to know the difference between the human speech and Wahi (revelation) and the path of the enemies of God will be exposed fully. The foundation of the system of governance brought by this Al Furqan (Quran) which is the ordainments of God is to be implemented on the constitutions, customs, systems and laws formulated by people. The Shariah revealed by Him is to be accorded the status which is not constantly demeaned in the form of constitutional recommendations in need of the approval of people but mere its being the revelation of God accords it the status of law which does not need the approval of a single person, leave aside the approval of a two thirds.

----------

 

The Views of Islamic Scholars On Democracy

By Abdur Rauf Ansari, Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad

“If thou obeyedst most of those on earth they would mislead thee far from Allah's way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.”(Al An’am: 116)

In Tafseer Roohul Ma’ani vol 4, p 141, Allama Allosi says:

“It is like getting misled and misleading others too and the evil thoughts are corruptive forces that originate due to ignorance and conjuring up lies about God. They follow shirk and deviance.”

But most of mankind know not. (Al A’raf: 187)

Shah Waliullah has rejected the theory of democracy while explaining the meaning of “If you follow the majority of the people on the earth”

Qari Tayyib Qasmi Deobandi writes in his ‘Natural government’:

“It (democracy) is shirk against God (polytheism) both in terms of God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience”.

In ‘Beliefs in Islam’, p 230 Maulana Idris Kandhlawi writes:

“Those who say that it is the government of workers and common people, such government is undoubtedly atheistic.”

In his Vol 20, page 415 of Fatawa Mahmoodiyyah, Maulana Mahmud ul Hasan Gangohi writes:

In Islam, democracy has no existence nor a sane person can see any virtue in it.”

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi in Malfuzat-e-Thanwi writes:

“Such a democratic government that is composed of Muslims and kafir members will only be a kafir government”

In a sermon he said,

“Nowadays a strange trend has developed according to which what the majority says is considered true. It may be right to an extent but it should also be kept in mind whose opinion is meant by opinion, the opinion of the general masses? If the opinion of the masses is meant, then why didn’t Hadhrat Hood act on their advice? The entire nation was on one side and Hadhrat Hood persisted on the other side. After all, why did he not leave Tawhid and adopt idol worship? Why did he take the blame of sowing seeds of difference in his nation? It was because the majority of the nation was ignorant. So their opinion was also based on ignorance. (Ma’arfi Hakeemul Ummat: Page 617)”

On another occasion he says,

“Maulana Muhammad Hussain Allahabadi had said to Syed Ahmad Khan that they decide on the basis of majority of opinion. In other words, they decided on the opinion of fools as it was the natural rule that in the word men of wisdom are outnumbered by fools. According to this rule, the decision taken on the basis of majority of opinions will be a decision of fools.”(Ibid, 626)

Mufti Rasheed Ahmad writes in Ahsanul Fatawa vol 6 p 24-256:

“There is no concept of Western Democracy as it deems the presence of various groups (ruling party and opposition) whereas the Quran negates this concept.”

“Hold onto the rope of God steadfastly and do not divide.” (Al-e-Imran: 103)

All the decisions in it are taken on the basis of majority of votes whereas the Quran strikes at the root of this ideology.”

“If thou obeyedst most of those on earth they would mislead thee far from Allah's way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.”(Al An’am: 116)

This unnatural system has been imported from Europe in which the heads are counted not weighed. In this system, men and women, old and young, the layman and the scholar and the wise and fool are sold at the same price. The candidate who gets the most votes is declared successful and the other fails. For example, if from a population, fifty Ulema and intellectuals unanimously votes a person and on the other hand the drunkard, drug addicts and atheists of the same locality gave 51 votes to his rival, he will be declared successful and become the authority of the area. Therefore, this system is the product of the evil system called democracy. There is no room for this atheistic system nor can the Islamic system can be established through this process. The majority of atheists vote the people of their ilk to assemblies.

Islam is based on Shura system in which the authorized people select an emir (ruler) after careful deliberations. Therefore, before his death, Hadhrat Umar constituted a council of six advisors who unanimously appointed Hadhrat Uthman as the caliph. In this holy system, the heads are weighed instead of being counted. In this system, the opinion of a wise man weighs heavily against the opinions of millions of people. Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique selected Hadhrat Umar without consulting anyone trusting his own wisdom. How balanced, appropriate and right his choice was!

Mufti Rasheed Ahmad writes further in Ahsan ul Fatawa, vol 6 p 94:

Considering democracy synonymous with Mushawarat (consultations), people have started saying that democracy is synonymous with Islam, though it is not so simple. There is a constant philosophy behind true democracy which cannot go even one step with Deen and which makes having faith in secularism obligatory.”

In his exegesis, Tafsir Anwar al Bayan, vol 1 p 518, Maulana Ashique Elahi Bulandshahri writes:

“The democracy brought by them is based on ignorance and has nothing to do with Islam.”

Mufti Nizamduddin Shamzai says:

“Today I want to tell you that if the Deen of God has to dominate the world, it cannot be through votes. If you want to make the Deen of God dominate the world by forming political parties through the western democracy then you cannot succeed because the world is filled with the enemies of God, with the corrupt and licentious people and democracy is synonymous with counting people, not weighing them.

Iqbal had said,

Jamhuriyat who tarze hukumat hai ke jisme

Bandon ko gina karte hain taula nahi karte.

(Democracy is a system of governance in which people are counted not weighed)

Therefore, Islam cannot dominate through western democracy in the same way as one cannot perform ablution with urine. Similarly, Islam can never dominate with the help of atheistic system of western democracy. If Islam ever has to dominate, it will dominate through the way of the holy prophet (pbuh) and the way is jihad. It is through the jihad that the Deen of God will dominate. Islam will dominate only through jihad in the world. The Deen of God or Islam will never dominate the world through votes or through western democracy.”

Maulana Fazl Muhammad writes in Islamic Caliphate p 117:

“The Islamic Shariah based Shura and the present day democracy are diametrically opposite. The latter is synonymous with the waywardness and anarchy of the western free society which has no proximity with Islamic Shura.”

On page 176 he writes:

“Some people call it Islamic democracy. It is same as Islamic wine.”

Maulana Abdur Rahman Kayani in his book, ‘The politics of the predecessors and democracy’ writes:

“Does the court of any democratic country can order the amputation of the thief’s hand if its assembly has not formed the law? After all, who has given the authority to the assembly to review the law revealed by God? The assembly may approve or reject the law. Giving this authority to the assembly is Shirk. If you accepted the law after the approval of the assembly, it has no importance. Do you pay allegiance to God or assembly?”

In his same book, Maulana Kayani writes,

“Democracy plays arbiter between true and false whereas through jihad truth dominates, though it does not necessarily has the numerical majority. And it is the way caliphate is established.”

In his book, ‘Difference between Islam and Democracy’, Prof Abdullah Bahawalpuri writes on page 7:

The western countries want that democracy should remain in vogue among Muslims even if it is in the form of Islamic democracy. They fear that if Muslims wriggle out of the clutches of democracy, they will definitely run towards the Islamic system of caliphate. Muslims have forgotten caliphate but do not forget Kufr. It (caliphate) heralds death to Kufr while it is an elixir of life for Islam. The loss and damage Kufr incurred was at the hands of caliphate, whether it was caliphate of the four caliphs. Or the caliphate of Banu Umayyah, or the Ottoman caliphate. It was the caliphate that conquered Bethlehem, it was the caliphate that destroyed Europe. Democracy has done nothing except surrendering the areas conquered by the caliphate. The period during which Islam progressed and spread was of the caliphate and not democracy.

Source: Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad, May 2013

URL: http://newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/md-sayeed-hasan,-nawa-e-afghan-jihad/talibans-tirade-against-democracy-based-on-sheer-ignorance-of-the-fast-changing-global-situations/d/11687

 

Loading..

Loading..