01-02-2008, 11:13 PM
Dear Amir,
Democracy certainly empowers public a freedom of speech and the consent of majority becomes a law. You are right that Islam has imposed certain limitations, but how come you concluded that a democracy working in the bounds of Islam can't exist? Our law says the same that any bill that is not in accordance with Islamic sharia can't be passed.
The system you referred to as the system of early Muslims is to be called aristocracy i.e. UMARA KI HAKUMAAT. The word umara might be confusing, it doesn't only include the rich but the prestigious ones no matter on the account of wealth, knowledge or any other thing. In my opinion early Islamic system was somewhat aristocratic. However, at the one and the same time, I can't disagree to one who says that Islam is democratic in essence. Democracy involves a process of consultation and the consent of democracy prevails. The question is who should be involved in the process of decision making; general public or selected ones.
Many people suggests Khilafat as a solution for present era's political crisis. I reckon that you are one of them. Now tell me how the majlis-e-shoora you referred to can be established today? I mean who are going to select its members? Can today's parliament be a substitute for that? Doesn't Islam has the ability to mould it self with time?
What I am trying to conclude is that your suggestion is not practicable. Name a single country or place in history after Hazrat Ali's time when similar khilafat was there as a system for governance. It is something else that Muslim's kept on calling Kingdon as Khilafat.
I am not a supporter of democracy as I find so my ills in it. But at the same time I can't think of any else system which is better than democracy.
My conclusions are similar to Quaid who said Islam in essence in democratic. And in the end I will quote
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill .
I can swear that I don't like democracy at all, but, it seems to be the only choice. However, for a democracy to be successful a literate and mature public is required, which, at least, is not our case.
Regards,
Shoaib
Democracy certainly empowers public a freedom of speech and the consent of majority becomes a law. You are right that Islam has imposed certain limitations, but how come you concluded that a democracy working in the bounds of Islam can't exist? Our law says the same that any bill that is not in accordance with Islamic sharia can't be passed.
The system you referred to as the system of early Muslims is to be called aristocracy i.e. UMARA KI HAKUMAAT. The word umara might be confusing, it doesn't only include the rich but the prestigious ones no matter on the account of wealth, knowledge or any other thing. In my opinion early Islamic system was somewhat aristocratic. However, at the one and the same time, I can't disagree to one who says that Islam is democratic in essence. Democracy involves a process of consultation and the consent of democracy prevails. The question is who should be involved in the process of decision making; general public or selected ones.
Many people suggests Khilafat as a solution for present era's political crisis. I reckon that you are one of them. Now tell me how the majlis-e-shoora you referred to can be established today? I mean who are going to select its members? Can today's parliament be a substitute for that? Doesn't Islam has the ability to mould it self with time?
What I am trying to conclude is that your suggestion is not practicable. Name a single country or place in history after Hazrat Ali's time when similar khilafat was there as a system for governance. It is something else that Muslim's kept on calling Kingdon as Khilafat.
I am not a supporter of democracy as I find so my ills in it. But at the same time I can't think of any else system which is better than democracy.
My conclusions are similar to Quaid who said Islam in essence in democratic. And in the end I will quote
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill .
I can swear that I don't like democracy at all, but, it seems to be the only choice. However, for a democracy to be successful a literate and mature public is required, which, at least, is not our case.
Regards,
Shoaib
