Islam And Democracy
- Category Politics
- Subcategory Political Systems
- Topic Democracy
- Words 2202
- Pages 5
For a country to work, a system needs to be established. After Prophet Muhammad SAWW Muslims adopted caliphate as their political system and there is no denying that Islam has flourished in those periods, also Islam supports such systems as caliphate and kingship. In the 20th century a question arose that whether or not democracy is encouraged in Islam and if it can be considered as an Islamic system. A lot of debate took place and terms like Islamic democracy emerged. Many Islamic scholars put forward their point of view in this regard. Works by writers such as Mahboob Ul Hassan, Abul A’la Maududi, and Zahid Siddique Mughal have contributed significantly on this topic. Some scholars agree to the Islamic democratic system and some are against it.
Mahboob Ul Hassan comments on the issue in his articles and following deduction can be made. Democracy is characterized as a framework of government which builds up republic in a extraordinary way that choices are made agreeing to the will of the individuals but in a extraordinary way that individuals select a candidate who in arrange to ensure the wishes of the individuals make laws. And in case the chosen candidate falls flat to secure them, at that point open has the correct to dismiss the chosen candidate and select an unused one. In democracy, capitalism prospers and capitalism is an affirmation of a see that people are their claim makers having the correct to decide great and terrible. Capitalism is really appalled with god and is the inverse of Islam. This demonstrates that democracy has no put in Islam. In popular government, individuals are given the opportunity to choose agreeing to their claim wish. Be that as it may, Islam doesn’t allow this freedom.
The political framework that befits Islamic state and philosophy is caliphate since in this framework it gets to be simple for the individuals to take after Shariah. This political framework is based on the philosophy that people are the creation of Allah and good and bad is decided by Allah, furthermore the people ought to act in understanding with Shariah. There are two ways of building up caliphate. One is that as it were the individual having these five qualities to be specific information, equity, adequacy, sanity, and having a place to a Quraysh heredity ought to be made caliph. In history, Abu Bakr was too chosen as caliph on the premise of these qualities. Another way is that caliph of the state chooses his successor but its essential that the five qualities said are show in him. After a individual is made caliph, he takes vow of devotion from individuals that acknowledge him as caliph to acknowledge him as caliph until he proceeds to act upon shariah.
Abul A’la Maududi builds up in his book Khilafat o Malukiat that the kingship has a place to Allah and people are the caliphs. He cites the interpretations of Quranic verses to bolster his position. Allah has sent prophets so that he is worshipped rather than the way of Satan being followed. Good and bad ways are as of now decided by Allah, and when Allah or Prophet of Allah gives a choice on a certain matter at that point it ought to be accepted and taken after. This is often the belief system on which the framework of Islamic states run.
He moreover puts forward the concept of collective caliphate. He accepts that all Muslims have equal part in khilafah. Hence, no one has the right to deny other believers from their authority. In this setting, he relates caliphate to majority rule government. He sets up that each work of state from selecting the ruler to overseeing the framework ought to be done on the premise of exhortation of the public. He cites memorable occasions and Quranic verses to support his position.
He has given the cases of Khalifa-e-Rashideen that they used to choose on things after consulting the counsel of people of opinion shape Public. Hazrat Abu Bakr embraced a way that at whatever point he need to decide on a certain issue, he used to consult Quran and Hadith, and in case he couldn’t discover anything related to the matter in Quran and Hadith at that point he took the exhortation from virtuous individuals. Hazrat Umar (Caliph) once said that anybody can concur or oppose this idea with me. I don’t need everybody to take after my wishes. During the period of Khalifa-e-Rashideen, it was a law that no one requested for attaining the status of caliph. Whom the individuals respected as appropriate, they made him the caliph after shared discussion. Oath of devotion wasn’t the result of authority but the cause of it. Hazrat Abu Bakr was chosen as a caliphate by those, who accumulated, as the new head of Muslim community. Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) selected Hazrat Abu Bakr and HazratUmer for progression and all the individuals of Medina (agents) on the premise of their own wish gave vow of steadfastness for Hazrat Abu Bakr. Afterward, Hazrat Abu Bakr before his death made a will in favor of HazratUmer to be the caliph and after that assembled individuals in Masjid-e-Nabawi and inquired if they are fulfilled from the individual whom he has chosen as successor. He inquired individuals to listen to him and comply him. On which individuals answered, we are going listen and obey. Similarly, HazratUmer some time recently his passing designated an appointive chamber comprising of six individuals (who were popular among public) to choose on the caliph. This board made duty of one individual ‘Abdur Rehman’ among them to recommend the caliph. Abdur Rehman approached public and inquired for its advice. After this, he drew the conclusion that individuals need Hazrat Usman as caliph. On this premise, Hazrat Usman was chosen and public took the vow of devotion on his hand.
Afterward Hazrat Usman was martyred. At that point, through shura (discussion), it got to be apparent that Hazrat Ali A.S. is the foremost reasonable individual to be made caliph. A common assembly took place in Masjid-e-Nabawi and individuals took the vow of steadfastness on his hand. Later Muawiya got to be the king by the constrain of his sword. This stamped the starting of kingship in Islam. He has made the occasions of selection of Khulfa-e-Rashideen a portion of his book in arrange to relate them to democracy and demonstrate that majority rule government is required by Islam because people’s suppositions were given value amid Khilafah, oaths of fidelities were taken from them, same is the case with democracy that people’s conclusions are given esteem and their votes choose the ruler of the nation.
Zahid Siddique Mughal explains the term Islamic democracy. After explaining the term he rejects the principles that the supporters of Islamic democracy present. He says that democracy is termed as Islamic when the decisions made by the ruler are done in the light of the interpretations of texts of Shariah. This explanation is far away from reality as only Islamic scholars can interpret texts. Second point inn support is that the freedom to follow the Islamic rules should be given to every individual but he says scholars are afraid of giving this right because people might get wrong understanding. The third and last explanation is that the people are given rights to formulate laws regarding the issues on which there is no ruling in Quran, Sunnah, and Shariah. Third explanation implies making the will of individuals the will of Allah, which isn’t worthy in Islam. Islamic researchers make choices on these issues (regarding which there’s no administering) within the light of lessons of Shariah. And tolerating this clarification of democracy implies tolerating that Shariah is restricted and Islam isn’t the total code of life.
Individuals giving these clarifications for Islamic popular government have deficient information of Fiqh and clearly these clarifications are not worthy since Islam could be a total epistemology that gives decisions on all human acts from birth till passing. Considering the dismissals of clarification, it gets to be clear that in each condition Islamic researcher have the specialist of Muslim state since these are the ones who can make choices based on Shariah. this means religious government exist in Islam. Right to require choices is given to Islamic researchers since Islamic state is constituted upon Islamic belief system. Another thing to consider upon is that in democracy confirmation of choices is done by the open since genuine reason of the choice is to fulfill the interests of the public. However, in Islamic state, democracy isn’t conceivable since of its philosophy to form each choice to fulfill the will of Allah. Secondly, in democracy, administration is based on open choice and open is given the correct to choose the person that secures its wishes and interface. In any case, Islamic philosophy of state isn’t based on what public wants but to bring the wishes of public in agreement with the Shariah. And certainly, majority rule government isn’t the way to yield to the will of Allah.
It should also be caught on that indeed inside the boundaries of Shariah, creative energy of public authority isn’t a dismissal to capitalist goals but a way to achieve them. When the rules of Islam like Haram and intrigued ought to be illegal are made portion of capitalist framework, this implies that Islam is made portion of Capitalist framework that leads to the result that capitalism rules Islam. This once more isn’t acceptable in Islam since capitalism could be a framework of satisfying delights and Islam’s objective isn’t to achieve delight. Hence, majority rule government cannot be given any space in Islam.
‘And their decisions are made through mutual consultations.’ (surah Shua’ra: 38)
People often use this ayah to support democracy. The deductions they made form this ayah are that public has the right to choose their leader and this right is, what according to them, is given in democracy only. Another assumption is that in order to fulfill the order of taking advice, public representation is the best way. Public is treated equally, this means every person irrespective of their knowledge has a representation and vote while deciding the future of the country. It is not necessary for the people to be literate to give advice. Clearly, all of these presumptions are off-base and the proofs that this ayah gives for Islamic democracy is powerless. If the first presumption is correct at that point what is the reason of Shariah. Shouldn’t all the choices be made based on Shariah. Furthermore, indeed in democracy not all choices are made on public counsel. Suppose, in case it’s said that this ayah shouldn’t be taken in strict meaning but only within the meaning of determination of authority, at that point it ought to be told on what premise this interpretation is made. This ayah too doesn’t demonstrate that each individual (whether proficient or illiterate) should be given the proper to donate counsel. In case ayah is implied not to be taken in strict meaning, then why not take the meaning that as it were individuals of opinion ought to choose with respect to the caliph, the authoritative and implementative issues of the state. The issue with the Islamic masterminds is that they are so beyond any doubt that possession is an un-Islamic thing and the genuine political framework is based on democracy that they don’t allow Islamic content in back of their view. The fact is neither the Quran nor hadith has forbidden ownership. In reality, the lords like Hazrat Suleiman and Hazrat Dawood are praised in Quran.
Another prove that’s given as a verification of democracy is that in Islam it’s essential for the rulers to have public affirmation and a way to get that’s voting. It isn’t apparent that on what basis of Shariah the condition of public affirmation is put forward. In case there’s any evidence at that point it ought to be given. Something else, just on the premise of theories shaping conditions isn’t permitted in Islam. If open affirmation may be a need in Islam at that point Nauzubillah the Khilafah of Hazrat Abu Bakr was unlawful since he was articulated caliph to begin with and oath of dependability was taken after it. Essentially, hazrat Abu Bakr decided on HazratUmer as Caliph to begin with, at that point the advice of companions was taken. Never any caliph was made on the counsel of Public. Therefore, it becomes evident why democracy has no place in Islam.
To wrap it all up we can deduce that Islam does not support democracy. In democracy each and every vote counts no matter if the person is educated and aware or not, their opinion matters but in Islam, a person who has more knowledge is superior to the ignorant. The only thing that considered while taking decisions in democracy is “the majority”. If majority agrees on a certain statement, that it is implemented, no matter if it is in accordance with Islam or not. This way Islamic values cannot be protected as much in a democratic system as can in a system such as Caliphate or kingship. A Muslim caliph or king can make sure that Islamic values are followed and this way Islam will flourish.